Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of East Sussex (Eastbourne Division), in the room of John Slater, Esquire, deceased.—[Captain Margesson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour when the new regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act are likely to be ready for submission to the House?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I presume the hon. Member has in mind the regulations under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934. I am not yet able to make any statement on the subject.

Sir P. HARRIS: Am I to assume that it will not be before Easter?

Mr. STANLEY: I think it would be unsafe for the hon. Member to draw any assumptions from my reply.

Mr. JOEL: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the claims now being put forward by trade unions and trade councils that the scale of relief should be the same as the trade union rates of wages that a man would receive were he employed, he can state what would be the extra cost of unemployment relief on this basis over and above the normal average public assistance scales in force to-day?

Mr. STANLEY: I regret that there are not sufficient data for making a reliable calculation.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Mr. CLEARY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health how many public assistance committees have decided to make extra allowances for Jubilee week?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): I regret that my right hon. Friend has not the information required to answer the hon. Member's question.

Mr. CLEARY: Is it possible to obtain the information?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I will see what can be done.

Major COLFOX: Can he say whether any allowance will be made to the income tax payer in order that he too may join in these celebrations?

Mr. CLEARY: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that many public assistance committees have decided to make extra allowances for Jubilee week; and whether, in view of the consequent differentiation between sections of the unemployed, the Government will reconsider its decision regarding the question of extra allowances during Jubilee week for persons in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. STANLEY: I am afraid that I cannot add to the replies which have already been given on this subject.

Mr. LOGAN: Are we to understand that legislation is necessary for this purpose, and, if so, are the Government prepared to bring in such legislation?

Mr. STANLEY: I think the hon. Member had better refer to the previous replies which have been given.

LOCAL ADVISORY COMMITTEES.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any local advisory committees have been set up under Part II of the Unemployment Act, 1934, and in what towns such committees have been established; or, if no committees have been established, can he state when it is proposed to set up this machinery?

Mr. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead East (Mr. White) on 25th February.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

MINERS' LODGE, BOLDON (FILM PROSECUTION).

Mr. LAWSON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the reason for the recent prosecution of the trustees of the Boldon miners' lodge, County Durham, in respect to a film shown in their hall, and if he can state the charge; and why his Department instituted the prosecution?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): Application has been made on behalf of the police, by whom this prosecution was instituted, for a case to be stated for decision by the High Court. As the question of law involved is of some importance, I am considering whether the Treasury solicitor should be asked to act on behalf of the police. In the circumstances it would not be proper for me at present to make any further statement.

Mr. LAWSON: I assume that it was the police who were making the prosecution. How did it come to pass that one of the chief expert witnesses was a representative from the Home Office, giving evidence of the type of film? I think the right hon. Gentleman ought either to answer that question or to make more inquiries into the matter, because, the chief witness being from the Home Office, it appears as if the prosecution was by the Home Office and not by the police?

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MEDICAL REFEREE, YORKSHIRE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the feeling in Yorkshire against the appointment of Dr. Caiger as medical referee in eye and nystagmus cases, owing to the fact that the same doctor generally acts on behalf of the coal owners' indemnity company in arbitration cases; and will he endeavour to appoint one or more referees who refrain from acting either for employers or employés?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have not received any representations from the miners or other workmen against the appointment of Dr. Caiger, who has been a medical referee for nearly 15 years. I assume
that the hon. Member's question is not intended in any way to imply that Dr. Caiger has discharged his duties as referee otherwise than impartially, but that it has been put with the object of drawing attention to the desirability of appointing as medical referees doctors who are not called on to deal with such cases in their private practice. As I indicated in replies to questions by the hon. Member on Thursday last, I am certainly prepared to consider the problem, but I must again emphasise that it is one which presents great practical difficulties.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department aware of the deadlock that has been reached in Yorkshire, since the doctor referred to in the question has already examined a person three times on behalf of the indemnity company, and that there are no other medical referees available who have not taken part on the coalowners' side. During his investigations into the possibility of appointing a board of medical referees, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability, if possible, of appointing as referees in Yorkshire persons who have not served either the employers or the employés?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am very conscious of the necessity of trying to reach a fair decision in these matters. The difficulty is to find men with technical knowledge of eye problems. I am ready to look into the problem, as I have indicated, and I shall be glad to confer with the hon. Member on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TRAFFIC CONTROL (POLICE).

Mr. MARCUS SAMUEL: 1.
asked the Home Secretary whether the time of the motor-police will be equally or equitably distributed between the duties of overtaking and passing motorists exceeding the speed limit in built-up areas, and of approaching and crossing pedestrian crossings in order to provide evidence of illegal crossing by pedestrians?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It will be the duty of the traffic patrols to deal with any offences that they observe both on the part of motorists and of pedestrians.

BUILT-UP AREAS (SPEED LIMIT).

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: 8.
asked the Home Secretary what arrangements will be made by him to see that the police are supplied with speedometers tested by an independent authority so as to guarantee their exactitude, in view of the general liability of speedometers to error and variation; and whether, on demand by any person stopped for exceeding the speed limit, the police will be directed to produce a certificate as to the correct ness of the speedometer on the police car?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Police speedometers are regularly tested, and evidence as to their accuracy will be available to the courts if required. The evidence necessary to prove any speed which may be at issue is for the court to determine, and I do not think it is necessary to make any special arrangements of the kind suggested.

Mr. THORNE: 13.
asked the Home Secretary how many drivers of public vehicles have been convicted under the Traffic Acts in connection with the speed limit of 30 miles per hour?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I must refer the hon. Member to the annual returns of offences relating to motor vehicles, the latest of which is for the year 1933. The corresponding return for 1934 is not yet available.

Mr. THORNE: Is the Home Secretary not aware that in all these prosecutions the men in question come under the Act of 1930 and not under the recent order of the Minister of Transport; and may I ask whether he is in a position to obtain a time-table of the way that the men's hours are regulated, say, from London to Birmingham, and vice versa?

Sir G. FOX: 9.
asked the Home Secretary how many summonses have been issued from 18th March to date against motorists for exceeding the 30 miles-per- hour speed limit in built-up areas; and what is the present average daily number of police officers engaged in speed-trapping work?

Sir J. GILMOUR: In view of the fact that the new speed limit has only been in force for three days, it is unlikely that any summonses have yet been applied for. As regards the second part of the
question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Levy) on Tuesday.

ROAD SAFETY (ALCOHOL).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 42.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is now able to make any statement as to his communications with the British Medical Association and the Medical Research Council in relation to the question of alcoholic liquor and public safety on the roads?

Major GEORGE DAVIES (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend is unable to add anything at present to the reply which he gave to the hon. Member on this subject on the 28th February.

ROYAL MAIL MOTOR VANS.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 43.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the introduction of the 30 miles-per-hour speed limit in the London area, he pro poses to dispose of the specially fast stream-lined mail vans which were recently purchased by his Department to increase the efficiency of the air-mail department?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): No, Sir.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Are these mail vans allowed to exceed the statutory 30 miles an hour?

Sir E. BENNETT: The vans cannot, of course, exceed the speed limits laid down by law.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARREST (LOITERING).

Mr. WEST: 10.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Albert Burgess, of Ingersoll Road, Shepherd's Bush, who was arrested on a charge of loitering in Holland Park Avenue, taken to a police station, had his finger-prints taken, and placed in a cell; and whether, in view of the dismissal of the case and the humiliation suffered, some recompense can now be made, or apology offered, to the man who has an unblemished character?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Burgess was seen by the police to look into six unattended
motor cars and to try the doors of two of them. In discharging him the magistrate said:
The officers were quite justified in arresting you. If you loiter in such places and try to open the doors of cars, you must expect to be arrested, but I am going to take into account the fact that you have been employed for a long period in the motor trade. Your interest in motor cars may account for your actions.
In these circumstances I am satisfied that the police did not in any way exceed their duty and that there is no ground for making any payment.

Mr. WEST: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this unemployed young man had only been absent from home thirty minutes, that he had walked a mile, and that the reason for his alleged loitering was that he was ill, as is certified by his doctor? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of such cases in this particular area, and will he cause some further investigation to be undertaken in this case?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have made very careful investigation, and it is clear that the magistrate when he had the evidence before him made the statement which I have quoted to the House. This man, whatever his state of health may have been, did actually do these things.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the police are justified in taking the finger-prints of a man arrested on the street for loitering?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE SCHOOLS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 11.
asked the Home Secretary whether the present accommodation of senior Home Office schools is adequate to meet present needs; and, if not, what action he proposes to take to remedy this position?

Sir J. GILMOUR: There is at present a shortage of accommodation in senior Home Office schools. Steps have been taken to meet the difficulty by the provision of a new senior school for girls, and the re-classification of an existing school for boys which was last week converted into a senior school. In addition to this, two new schools for senior boys and girls are being provided by the
London County Council, and it is expected that they will be available within the next two or three months.

Mr. WHITE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how this question arose? Is it due to a change of policy on the part of the Education Department?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, I do not think that that is so, necessarily. There have been in certain cases an increase in number, and therefore probably the necessity for expansion.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

UNEMPLOYED TEACHERS, WALES.

Sir WILLIAM JENKINS: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what number of certificated teachers are now unemployed in Wales; and what number unemployed in Glamorgan county, giving the males and females separately?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): I regret that there is no information available regarding the number of certificated teachers now unemployed in Wales as a whole, or in Glamorgan county, but I am able to give the hon. Member an analysis of the employment position of those students who left university training departments and training colleges situated in Wales and the county of Glamorgan during the years 1933 and 1934. As the answer, however, contains a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to returns received from the university training departments and training colleges in Wales, of the 729 men and 995 women who left these departments and colleges in 1933 and 1934, 416 men and 629 women had obtained employment as teachers by 31st December, 1934; 164 men and 300 women were reported as having failed to obtain such employment; 53 men and 28 women were reported as not having attempted to obtain it; no information was available regarding the remaining 76 men and 38 women. Since 31st December, 1934, a further 46 men and 73 women are known to have obtained employment in State-aided schools.

Of the 183 men and 548 women who left the training departments and training colleges in the geographical county of Glamorgan alone in 1933 and 1934, 88 men and 322 women were reported as having obtained employment as teachers by 31st December, 1934; 56 men and 185 women as not having obtained such employment, and 15 men and 17 women as not having attempted to obtain it; no information was available regarding the remaining 24 men and 24 women.

CONVEYANCE OF CHILDREN, GLAMORGAN.

Sir W. JENKINS: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he will consider making an increased grant for the conveyance of children to elementary, senior, and junior schools in distressed areas similar to Glamorgan county?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on the 10th May, 1934, to which I have nothing to add.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (SENIOR CHILDREN, GLAMORGAN).

Sir W. JENKINS: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what number of boys and what number of girls remain in elementary schools in Glamorgan after the school-leaving age of 14; and what number remain in school until 15 years of age and over, if any?

Number of Juveniles, over the age of 14, on 30th September, attending Day Continuation Classes recognised by the Board of Education.


Type.
School Year.


1929–30.
1930–31.
1931–32.
1932–33.
1933–34.


Classes provided by Employers
1,500
1,342
1,249
1,250
1,731


Classes provided by Local Education Authorities.
16,682
17,864
15,922
13,669
11,515

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has seen the official statement by Mr. Hughes, Federal Minister of Health of Australia, that the Australian maternal mortality rate was 5.57 per 1,000 and that the English rate, if compiled on the same basis as the Australian, would be higher;

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend regrets that information is not available in the precise form asked for in the question; but the number of children on the registers in public elementary schools in the geographical county of Glamorgan on 31st March, 1934, who were over the age of 14¼ years, was 3,731. Of these children 984 were aged 15 or over on that date. During the year ending 31st March, 1934, 5,671 children left the public elementary schools after remaining in the elementary schools for varying periods after attaining the age of exemption, and of these, 1,335 had attained the age of 15 or over. It should, however, be mentioned that the year in question included two Easter vacation periods, and consequently included an additional leaving date.

DAY CONTINUATION CLASSES.

Miss CAZALET: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of juveniles, over the age of 14, attending day continuation classes during each of the last five years provided by employers and by local authorities, respectively?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the answer contains a tabular statement of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

and whether he will give the figures for this country compiled on the same basis as the Australian figure above mentioned?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has seen a report in the Press to the effect of the first part of the question, but the statement as to comparative rates in the two countries was not attributed to the Federal Minister of Health.
There are known to be certain differences in the basis of calculation in the two countries, and my right hon. Friend doubts whether it is possible to establish the true relation between the English and Australian rates without much fuller comparison than has hitherto been made between the English and Australian procedure at all stages in the preparation of maternal mortality statistics.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Is nothing being done to get a system by which we can compare these figures with different parts of the Empire?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Not so far as I know.

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Will my hon. Friend look into the matter with the Registrar-General and see whether such a very obviously elementary procedure could not be adopted?

SCARLET FEVER, DENHAM.

Mr. THORNE: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a report from his inspector in connection with the scarlet fever outbreak at Denham, Bucks; whether he can state the number of children affected; whether adjacent schools have been closed on account of the epidemic; and what action is being taken to prevent the outbreak spreading?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has now received a report from his medical officer on this outbreak. The number of children affected is 81. Only the two elementary schools affected have been closed on account of the outbreak. The outbreak was found to be due to the consumption of raw milk, which had been neither pasteurised nor boiled, and the medical officer of health at once arranged for the pasteurisation of all further milk from the dairy concerned. This precaution effected the immediate arrest of the outbreak. The source of the infection of the milk was later traced to a milker on a farm supplying the dairy, and he was removed to the isolation hospital for observation. My right hon. Friend is advised that adequate precautions have been taken to prevent any further spread of the infection.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Member tell us exactly what action the
Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture are taking to put into operation the recommendation of the Hopkins report in regard to infected milk?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The hon. Member will realise that a very big issue is involved in that report, and I hope he will allow some time for its consideration.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member not aware that his right hon. Friend informed an influential deputation that the two Ministers were expecting to take a decision almost immediately the report was made available?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not this show the dangers of milk as a beverage?

CHINESE EGGS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether the bacteriological examination recently carried out at the Devonport laboratory of eggs imported from China would indicate their food values?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: No, Sir. The report which I have seen of this examination gives no indication of the food values of the eggs in question.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the hon. Member endeavour to persuade his colleagues in the Government to try some of these eggs themselves?

Mr. HASLAM: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the report of the Scientific Poultry Breeders' Association, a copy of which has been submitted, which contains evidence that Chinese eggs are often produced under insanitary conditions, and has had a bacteriological examination made of the contents of the tins containing Chinese liquid eggs as imported into this country; that this examination shows that bacteria causing decomposition are present in these liquid eggs; that such bacteria would become active as soon as the eggs are unfrozen and raised to room temperature, especially in summer; and whether in view of the danger to public health, he will hasten the inquiry he has been making since 11th February or take interim measures to safeguard the public?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 14th March to my hon. Friends the Members for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and
Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) a copy of which I am sending to him. As stated in that answer, samples of Chinese eggs have recently been examined in the laboratory of my Department and nothing was found to show that any pathogenic organisms were present. The examination of further samples is being completed as quickly as possible.

Mr. HASLAM: Is the hon. Member aware that the examination showed that there were bacteria causing decomposition, and will he ask the Minister of Health to publish a fuller report than he has indicated to the House showing exactly the numbers of these microorganisms, the rate of decomposition, and other matters of importance to public health?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Department of Health was asked to make this examination and did so; and the result does not confirm the fears of the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it not true that only one tin out of a whole lot was examined?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that his Department only condemns food when it has pathogenic organisms, that is organisms which produce disease, and does not mind organisms which only produce decomposition? That is his suggestion.

PASTEURISED MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir ARNOLD WILSON (for Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN): 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Cattle Diseases Committee reported in 1934 that the frequent infection by tubercle bacilli of milk sold from licensed and unlicensed pasteurisation and other heat-treatment plants constituted a disturbing situation; and what, if any, steps have been taken since the issue of the report to draw the attention of medical officers to the contents of this report?

Major G. DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to him on this subject on 14th March. The circular which my right hon. Friend is sending to local authorities will draw attention to the report of the Cattle Diseases Committee and copies of the circular will be sent to medical officers of health.

Sir A. WILSON: Will my hon. and gallant Friend ask the Minister to give the circular publicity in this House?

Major DAVIES: I will certainly convey that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PENISTONE.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the proposals of the West Riding County Council for the revision of the local government area around Penistone were formulated some time ago; and whether, as, in view of the recent knowledge that industrial prosperity will be restored to Penistone, it is necessary for Penistone to maintain its existing urban powers and status so as to provide for its future good government, he will draw the attention of the West Riding County Council to the new circumstances that have arisen regarding the industrial future of Penistone?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The county council's proposals for the alteration of county districts in the West Riding are now before my right hon. Friend, and he is making arrangements for the holding of a public inquiry into them. The circumstances of the Penistone area will be fully examined at the inquiry and will be carefully considered before a decision is reached. The urban district council have already made representations to my right hon. Friend, and they will have full opportunity of being heard at the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF (TEST WORK).

Mr. T. SMITH: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, in consequence of the postponement of the second appointed day under the Unemployment Act, unemployed men are still being subjected to test work, and that for instance, at Ipswich 260 men are now on test work; and whether, in view of the request made by these men for its discontinuance, he will advise public assistance authorities that advantage should not be taken of the postponement of the second appointed day to continue test work?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second in the negative. I would remind the hon. Member
that the requirement in the Relief Regulation Order, 1930, that able-bodied men should be set to work or trained or instructed is still in force and that it is in the best interests of the men themselves that they should be provided with regular occupation in order to maintain or improve their employability.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR INDUSTRY (LICENCE DUTY).

Mr. LYONS: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in view of the present importations of foreign-made cars, he will consider confining the recent reduction in the horse-power tax to British-made motor cars?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer' given on the 6th November last by the Financial Secretary to questions by the hon. Members for Bradford Fast (Mr. Hepworth) and Hanley (Mr. Hales).

Mr. LYONS: Is it not the fact that the sudden increase in the imports of foreign motor cars coincides with a reduction of the tax in relation to the high-powered motor cars coming into this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It coincides also with a change in the weather.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: And with a fall in the value of the dollar.

ITALY (PROVISIONAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make any statement as to the representations which are being made in relation to the Italian quota restrictions imposed upon the import of pilchards and other commodities?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I have nothing at present to add to the replies I gave to questions on this subject on 19th March, except to say that the provisional arrangement which I then described has been embodied in notes which were exchanged between His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome and the Italian Government on that day.

POLAND.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the figures of the exports to and imports from Poland of carpets and rugs during the last five years?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am having a statement prepared which I will send to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Sir J. WARDLAW- MILNE: Is it the case that the imports from Poland are increasing? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer that question?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that question yet.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON (for Mr. MALLALIEU): 35 and 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the percentage reduction, as compared with the 1930 level, of the duties on British exports to Poland which the recent treaty with that country reduces below the 1930 level; and what is the average percentage increase of those duties, as compared with the 1930 level, on British exports to Poland which are now to be higher than the 1930 level;
(2) whether the recent trade agreement with Poland has resulted in a decrease of the rate of duty, as compared with the 1930 level, on 60 per cent. of the types of articles exported from this country to Poland, or on 60 per cent. of their bulk or of their value?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Polish trade agreement provided for the reduction of 340 rates of duty in the Polish tariff. About 60 per cent. of the reduced rates of duty are below the levels in force in 1930. The reduced rates are for the most part 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. lower than the 1930 levels. The rates which still show an increase as compared with 1930 rates vary very widely, but do not for the most part exceed the 1930 rates by more than 50 per cent. It is estimated that, on the basis of the figures for 1930, from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. by value of our trade with Poland will benefit by duties lower than those applied in 1930. In addition reduced duties will be enjoyed by various trades which have developed since 1930, or are now being developed.

IMPORTS (HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the large quantity of foreign-made goods exclusively suitable for trade during the Jubilee celebrations which are coming into the country; and whether he will take steps to check some of the harm these dumped goods are doing to British trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Accrington (Major Procter) on 5th March. I would add that if the United Kingdom manufacturers of similar goods consider the existing rate of duty inadequate, it is open to them to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. HANNON: Will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that there is not time, because it is an emergency, to make an application to the Import Duties Advisory Committee with any hope of stopping this abnormal import?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that, if there is an emergency and immediate action is necessary, such action would be taken by the Committee.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough, in handling this problem, to find out the names and addresses of the patriotic persons who are importing these goods?

COTTON IMPORTS.

Mr. FLEMING: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that cotton goods, copies of Lancashire textiles, are being dumped on the Home trade market at prices with which the Lancashire manufacturers cannot compete; and what steps he pro poses to take in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that there has been some increase in the imports of certain kinds of cotton piece goods into this country. The question of any increase in the import duty is, in the first instance, one for the Import Duties Advisory Committee, but I would point out that retained imports of cotton piece goods amount to a fraction of 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom production of similar goods.

Mr. FLEMING: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing demand in Lancashire that such dumped goods be entirely prohibited, and can he say why such a policy could not be adopted?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The proper procedure is to go to the Import Duties Advisory Committee with a demand of that sort.

IMPORTED EGGS.

Captain HEILGERS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there has been a reduction in the number of eggs imported in February, 1935, as compared with February, 1934; and, if so, whether he can state the approximate reduction in foreign and Dominion eggs, respectively?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During February, 1935, aggregate imports of poultry eggs in shell amounted to 1,016,000 great hundreds, being 294,000 great hundreds less than in February, 1934. Imports consigned from British countries declined by 122,000 great hundreds, and from foreign countries by 172,000 great hundreds.

Captain HEILGERS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this very satisfactory reduction is likely to continue or whether the operation of the ordinary quota will mean a rise in the imports in March?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not care to prophesy the output of our hens.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE: BARLEY (BREWERS' PURCHASES).

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received from the Brewers' Society information as to the quantities of British malting barley purchased by brewers in the years June, 1932, to June, 1933, and June, 1933, to June, 1934, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In response to the inquiry I promised to make of the Brewers' Society, I am informed that returns voluntarily furnished by brewers, estimated by the society to cover over 95 per cent. of the total output of Homemade beer, show the following results:

—
Year ended 30th June, 1933.
Year ended 30th June, 1934.



Quarters.
Quarters.


Home-grown Barley purchased.
686,732
872,976


Malt (made from home grown barley) put-chased or contracted to be purchased.
715,921
899,155



1,402,653
1,772,131

I should add that one quarter of barley weighing 448 lbs. is the equivalent of one quarter of malt weighing 336 lbs.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures show that the members of the Brewers' Society have fully implemented the promises made to him last year on the subject?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the hon. Member can form an opinion as well as I can about that. The figures show a considerable increase.

Captain HEILGERS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures for this year up to the end of February?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCUMENTS (STAMPING FACILI- TIES, PORTSMOUTH AND SOUTHAMPTON).

Major Sir HERBERT CAYZER: 28.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the delay and inconvenience caused to solicitors, bankers, merchants, etc., in having to send documents through the post for stamping purposes, consideration will be given to the question of the reinstatement of the stamp offices at Portsmouth and Southampton, which were closed on the ground of economy in 1921; and what the cost would be if one or both of these offices were re-established?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): The interval of time which elapses between presentation of documents for stamping and their return is not, I am advised,
greater at Southampton and Portsmouth than at many other towns similarly circumstanced and is in any case not considerable. The offices were closed in the interests of national economy on the ground that the volume of work was insufficient to employ a full time staff. This condition still exists and I regret, therefore, that I am unable to agree to reopening the offices. To reopen either of the offices would involve a capital expenditure of about £2,000 and an annual expenditure of about £700.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Could not some of this work be done in post offices? There are many simple documents now coming to London which could easily be attended to at a post office.

Mr. COOPER: I do not think that would be practicable without increasing the staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SINGAPORE BASE (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: 29.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount spent and estimated to be spent by all the departments on the construction, equipment and defence of the naval base at Singapore; and will he give the amount for each department separately?

Mr. COOPER: As the reply involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following is the reply:


—
Amount estimated to be spent to 31.3.1935.
Approximate amount remaining to be spent.




£
£


Admiralty
…
5,040,000
3,900,000


Air Ministry
…
650,000
1,290,000


War Office
…
1,635,000
2,310,000


Total
…
7,325,000
7,500,000

COURTS-MARTIAL VERDICT (ADMIRALTY REVISION).

Mr. G. HALL: 58.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there is any precedent for the Board of Admiralty reversing a verdict of not guilty found by a naval court; if so, will he give them: and whether, before this was done in the
case of Rear-Admiral Bailey and Captain Tower, they were given any opportunity for making any defence, seeing that this overruling of the verdict of a judicial court by the executive authority to the detriment of the accused is opposed to the principles of British justice?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): There are many precedents for the course taken by the Admiralty. In particular, I would refer the hon. Member to the Admiralty's dissent from the findings of the courts-martial which acquitted the captains of the "Conqueror" and "Howe" in 1862 and 1893. On both those occasions the course which the Admiralty had taken was considered by the House of Commons and was approved. On the first occasion Lord Palmerston and on the second Mr. Asquith vindicated with great force the right and duty of the Admiralty, as the authority supremely responsible for the safety and discipline of the Navy, to pronounce their opinion in a matter touching the safety of His Majesty's ships, quite apart from any decision which a court-martial may have reached.
In reviewing the proceedings of these courts-martial, the Admiralty took fully into account the whole of the evidence, in which both the facts of the case and the contentions of the three officers concerned were perfectly clearly set forth. So far from admitting that the Board's action was open to the criticism contained in the last part of the question, I am satisfied that it was just, was in accordance with precedent, and was required in view of the Board's responsibility to the Navy and to the public.

Mr. HALL: May I ask the First Lord whether the precedent which he has quoted is the last precedent; also whether the naval officers who made up the court-martial were consulted by the Board before the Board arrived at the decision which has been announced; and what further action, if any, the Board intend to take against the naval officers concerned?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The second part of the hon. Member's question was, I think, whether the officers of the court were consulted before the Admiralty publicly dissented from their decision. They were not consulted; they were informed. As regards the last part of the question, the decisions of the Board have been
announced by the Admiralty, and no further action is intended.

Commander MARSDEN: Was there not also a precedent on the occasion of the stranding of His Majesty's ship "Assistance" in the present century?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: There are many precedents. Those I quoted were not the last precedents. There are many others.

Mr. MAXTON: Would it not be better to cut out these futile courts-martial if their proceedings are going to be overturned by the Board of Admiralty in this way?

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND DRAINAGE, EAST LINCOLNSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Louth canal is stopped up by reeds and that the adjoining agricultural land has been in consequence flooded; and what action can and will be taken to remedy the position?

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend's attention has recently been called to the position of the Louth canal, and he is endeavouring as soon as possible to proceed with the constitution of elective drainage boards for this and other areas in East Lincolnshire.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what applications he has received for the establishment of elective drainage boards in East Lincolnshire and what action he proposes to take; and whether, in spite of the fact that there is no catchment board in East Lincolnshire, the drainage authorities may be given grants for necessary drainage work and sea defence?

Sir G. BOWYER: Three petitions have been received for the constitution of elective boards in the area to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and steps are now being taken to give effect to these petitions in accordance with the provisions of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. As regards the last part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend's attention is called to Section 55 of the Act which authorises the payment of Government grants only to catchment boards.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEA FISH COMMISSION.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the next report of the Sea Fish Commission may be expected?

Sir G. BOWYER: My right hon. Friend regrets that at this stage he is not in a position to indicate when the report referred to is likely to be received.

Sir M. McKENZIE WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman have inquiries made and see whether the report can be expedited?

Sir G. BOWYER: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Commission has a very wide field of inquiry both as regards catching and distribution and that the report cannot be hurried.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (CITRUS EXPORTS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is intended to continue indefinitely the subsidy at present given to the Lloyd Triestino Company for the carriage of citrus fruit from Cyprus; and whether it is possible for arrangements to be made for a British company to do this work and, if necessary, to combine the carriage of citrus from Cyprus with citrus from Palestine?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): The subsidy in question is not paid for the carriage of citrus fruit but in respect of the inclusion of Cyprus in the itinerary of the fast weekly service (mainly for passengers and mails) maintained by the Lloyd Triestino Company between Trieste, Brindisi and Palestine. There is no formal contract between the Government of Cyprus and the Company, and the arrangement is reviewed every six months. As regards the general question of steamship communication with Cyprus I can add nothing to the reply given to a question yesterday, a copy of which I am sending to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 44.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is yet in a position to state from where the new television service in the London area will be operated; and by what date it may be expected to commence operations?

Sir E. BENNETT: The Television Advisory Committee is considering the question of the location of the television station which it is proposed to establish in London, but has not yet submitted a report on the subject. It is not yet possible to make any announcement concerning the date of opening of the new service.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (RE-ARMAMENT).

Sir P. HARRIS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any estimate has been made as to the probable cost of the latest proposals for the re-armament of Ger many?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Government have no information as to the probable cost of the latest proposals for the rearmament, of Germany.

Sir P. HARRIS: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether any estimate has been made by the Government of the probable amount of this increased expenditure?

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the announcement of the German Government of the reintroduction of the system of conscription into the German army, it is the intention of the Government to publish as a White Paper the reports of the senior British officer in charge of German effectives for the years 1920 to 1923?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I presume that my hon. Friend has in mind the reports addressed by the Effectives Sub-Commission to the Military Control Commission. It may be assumed that any portions of those reports which were relevant at the time of the withdrawal from Germany at the end of January, 1927, of the Inter-Allied Military Control Commission, were duly embodied in the final report of that Commission. The final report is retained in' the archives of the League of Nations Secretariat at Geneva and the question of its publication would be a matter for the League.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE SERVICES (DEBATES).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will take
action to have the Standing Orders of the House altered to allow of annual discussion of the three services together with relation to each other?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have stated on several occasions that they are in favour of an opportunity being given for a Debate to take place on defence as a whole after the Estimates have been issued and before they are debated separately by the House. This year such an opportunity was given. They are not, however, in favour of amending the Standing Orders.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: In view of the difficulty of getting a Debate of this kind, would not the Prime Minister try to let us have one another year at any rate?

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that these Debates invariably develop into Debates on foreign policy and that we never have a real Debate on the Services?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 47.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will state the number of disabled ex-service men who were receiving a course of in patient treatment at the last convenient date; and, of the number in question, how many were receiving treatment allowances?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): At the end of December last, approximately 2,400 officers and men were receiving in-patient treatment—apart from cases in mental hospitals. The precise information asked for in the latter part of the question is not available, but certainly the great majority of those receiving in-patient treatment would be in receipt of treatment allowances.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (MEMBERS' COMMUNICATIONS).

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: 48.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will place in some central position in the House of Commons 615 pigeon-holes for Members of Parliament, so that Members may interchange communications with the minimum of trouble and expense?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I do not feel that any additional fitting, and particularly the kind of structure my hon. Friend suggests, is necessary, having regard to the facilities already existing for the interchange of communications between hon. Members at the door of this Chamber.

Sir W. SMITHERS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Member can only leave 10 letters at the door to be distributed, and that if he wishes to send more he has to post them and to pay postage for a letter handed in and delivered in the same building?

Mr. GEOFFREY PETO: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that this idea of a permanent resting-place for the whips, and the appeals with which we assail each other, is very useful, and does he not agree, that in view of the limits of space in this House, a crematorium would be even more essential than a columbarium?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would my right hon. Friend have the pigeon-holes made large enough to hold Members?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND (SUGAR-BEET FACTORY, CUPAR).

Captain SHAW: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the beet-sugar factory in Cupar is the only one in Scotland, he can see his way to arrange that the proposed reduction in acreage shall not apply to Scottish growers, in order that Scotland may be assured of her legitimate share of the subsidy?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Normand): It is not possible to re-open the arrangements already made by the Government, which involve an all-round reduction of about 7 per cent. in the acreage of sugar beet to be contracted for by the beet-sugar factories, and are in this respect designed to maintain as nearly as possible the existing position pending the determination of the long-term policy.

Captain SHAW: Does my right hon. and learned Friend know that England is going to get the subsidy on 375,000 acres, while Scotland is going to get the
subsidy on only 7,000 acres or thereabouts; and does he not consider that a gross injustice to Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

WATER SUPPLY, BOURLEY AND PORTON.

Sir A. WILSON: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether pro vision has been made in current estimates for an improved water supply at Bourley and Porton in place of that now existing, which was officially reported in 1932 as giving rise to anxiety and a feeling of insecurity, as financial stringency precluded necessary improvements?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): It has not been found possible to provide funds in the current estimates for the improvement of the water supply at Bourley; but the Porton supply which previously gave rise to anxiety, has been improved by the installation of a more powerful pumping unit at Porton North and work on an additional bore hole is in progress.

FOREIGN STATIONS (BARRACKS).

Sir A. WILSON: 51.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been drawn to the infestation of barracks in Egypt, Gibraltar, China, and Malta by bugs, and the statement made in the Report on the Health of the Army for 1932 that they are a source of great irritation, particularly to young soldiers; and what, if any, steps are in contemplation to provide better accommodation, particularly in Egypt where no improvement can be expected so long as existing buildings are in use?

Mr. HACKING: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will refer to the report on the health of the Army for 1933, which shows the varying success which has attended experiments to rid infested barracks and quarters of this pest. The problem, however, is a very difficult one and the only satisfactory solution lies in the replacement of hutted structures and the modernization of old-fashioned permanent buildings, which is being done as funds become available. At the present time extensive schemes are in contemplation in China and Egypt.

Sir A. WILSON: Is there any prospect of similar schemes in Malta?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. I do not think so—not in this financial year.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: On what date did this foreign army arrive here?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a debugging parade every Thursday in Gibraltar, and does he not consider that this is a waste of time?

DENTAL TREATMENT.

Sir A. WILSON: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Director-General of Army Medical Services in his annual report on the health of the Army for 1932, that dental care of the women and children of serving soldiers is inferior to that available in civil life, owing to financial stringency precluding the appointment of more dental officers; and what steps are in contemplation in this connection?

Mr. HACKING: The Army Council are aware of the situation, and it is their intention to provide for regular inspection and treatment of all children attending Army schools when financial considerations permit of the necessary increase in expenditure on dental officers, materials, etc. The wives and children of soldiers are, of course, already eligible for such dental treatment as the officers of the Dental Corps can give them at their surgeries, and I think that the report which my hon. and gallant Friend is quoting was a little too modest in suggesting that the wife in civil life has better opportunities of free treatment.

OFFICERS (PROMOTION).

Brigadier-General NATION: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the Stanhope Committee on the promotion of officers in the Army has presented its report in the case of arms of the service other than the infantry; and what steps are proposed to carry out its recommendation?

Mr. HACKING: The committee which has been dealing with this question has recently presented its report, and with regard to the Royal Artillery I hope next week to be in a position to give an outline of the decisions taken. As regards other arms the recommendations are still under consideration.

Brigadier-General NATION: If I put down a question say in about a fortnight's time, will my right hon. Friend then be able to give further details about the scheme?

Mr. HACKING: With regard to the Royal Artillery, I think I could give a reply on Tuesday.

Brigadier-General NATION: What about the other arms?

Mr. HACKING: With regard to the other arms, I would not care to give a reply at the moment.

DRILL HALL, MERTHYR-TYDVIL.

Mr. STEPHEN DAVIES: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether it has been decided to proceed with the construction of a drill hall at Merthyr Tydvil?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir.

Mr. DAVIES: Is the Department not prepared to reconsider this decision, in view of the fact that it involves spending a large sum of money on an entirely useless project, in a sadly distressed area?

Mr. HACKING: No, Sir. I think if any people in the country desire to have the opportunity of putting themselves in a position to defend the country they ought to have that opportunity.

Mr. DAVIES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that similar buildings for similar purposes have been placed in that county within the last few years and are now worse than useless I emphasise the last sentence?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a new drill hall in Argyll where the men are all loyal and ready?

Mr. DAVIES: May I have an answer to my last question?

Mr. SPEAKER: It seemed to me that the hon. Member's last question was giving information.

ROYAL ARTILLERY (MECHANISED FIELD BRIGADES).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what percentage of the mechanised field brigades of Royal Artillery are commanded by officers who previous to their present appointments had not had regimental
experience of mechanically-drawn artillery?

Mr. HACKING: Fifty per cent., Sir.

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID: In view of the fact that these are very technical and therefore important positions, is my right hon. Friend satisfied with these proportions?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Sir P. HARRIS: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Council of the League of Nations will next meet at Geneva; and whether a special emergency meeting is likely to be called?

Mr. EDEN: The Council will meet in ordinary session on the 13th May. So far as I am aware, no arrangements have yet been made to hold an extraordinary session.

Sir P. HARRIS: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement in the Press to the effect that the French are asking for an emergency meeting of the Council of the League, and has he any information on that matter?

Mr. EDEN: That seems to be another question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Prime Minister the business for next week.

The PRIME MINISTER: The business will be as follows:

Monday: Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill; consideration of the Pork (Import Regulations) Order, 1935; and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, Second Reading, which is a formal stage. In connection with the Consolidated Fund Bill, I understand that the subjects to be discussed will be maternal and infant mortality and national health insurance.

Tuesday: Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, when, I understand, the question to be raised will be with regard to the Mercantile Marine.

Wednesday and Thursday: Committee stage of the Government of India Bill.

Friday: Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, Second Reading of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

On any day, if there is time, other orders will be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider, in negotiations through the usual channels, taking the Import Regulation Order on Friday. We should like, if we could, to alter this arrangement.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, certainly, if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to communicate with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the subject of the Import Duties Order?

The PRIME MINISTER: Pork.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Does the request of the Leader of the Opposition mean that the Scottish Land Drainage Bill will not be taken on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand not.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether, in order to safeguard the liberties of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will make it clear that, while by arrangements between the two Front Benches, it may be decided to submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Members should be called who wish to deal with special subjects, it is open to any hon. Member who should catch your eye to raise any subject that is in order on the Consolidated Fund Bill? It is important that that should be made clear.

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as the answer which I have just given is concerned, it is the usual thing. It has always been done, but I do not control the actual working of the business during the day. We have never experienced any inconvenience, and there is no misunderstanding in the House on the subject.

Mr. MAXTON: With regard to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition
as to the change in Friday's business, do I understand that the suggestion to be discussed through the usual channels is to transfer the discussion on the Army and Air Force Bill to Monday and to bring the Import Duties Bill to Friday?

Mr. LANSBURY: Our proposition is that we should take the Import Regulation Order on Friday as first business, and then take the other business afterwards, instead of taking the Import Duties Order on Monday after 11 o'clock. We shall probably be able to arrange that.

Ordered,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 14, the Report of the Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1934, and the Report of the Air Supplementary Estimate, 1934, and Business other than the Business of Supply, may be considered before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Reports of Supply of 14th, 18th, and 19th March may he taken after Eleven of the clock and shall be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COM- MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Neil Maclean; and had apointed in substitution: Mr. Wilmot.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill [Lords] and the Northern Ireland Land Purchase (Winding Up) Bill: Lord Balneil, Mr. Duff Cooper, Captain Crookshank, Mr. Rhys Davies, Sir John Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin. Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Sir Hugo Rutherford, and Sir Frank Sanderson.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Superannuation Bill): Captain Balfour, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Essenhigh, Sir Ian Fraser, Major Jesson, Mr. Morgan Jones, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Brigadier-General Spears, and Lieut-Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

EUROPEAN SITUATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

3.36 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: In ordinary circumstances we would not have asked for this discussion to-day. We would have preferred to let the questions that we discussed on the Vote of Censure the other night dealing with the Government's White Paper on armaments remain until after the visit of the Foreign Secretary to Berlin had been concluded. Circumstances have arisen, however, which, in our judgment, make it necessary that we should take this opportunity of putting before the House some considerations on the question of peace and disarmament. We are fully conscious that normally it might be stated, and with some truth, that during the last 10 days the subject has on the Estimates, and previously, been fairly discussed, but the events of the last five or six days are such that we feel that before the right hon. Gentleman goes to Berlin we should put some considerations which we desire to emphasise in this country and abroad. On a previous occasion, I told the House that I attended the first meeting of the Peace Conference that was held in Paris. At that conference one of the most notable speeches was made by the late President Wilson, who said that in the work they had in hand the one object they must try to attain was to satisfy the common people of the world and bring about peace and security.
We are living in the twenty-first year after the beginning of the Great War and the seventeenth after its conclusion. I believe that the events that happened in Germany sent through this country last Saturday afternoon and evening and Sunday such a feeling of shock, and almost despair, as is only to be compared with what happened in August, 1914. We are of opinion that, unless something is speedily done by the statesmen of Europe and the world, not only will the common people not be satisfied but that very large numbers of them will not be alive to be either dissatisfied or satisfied. The mentality in this country and abroad is a mentality of war. [HON. MEMBERS:
"No!"] I propose this afternoon, if I can help it, not to say anything outrageously provocative, but can anyone deny that every Government is saying exactly the same thing: "We are not arming for war, we are arming for peace, and only because other nations are arming"? No one will deny that, and we have only to read extracts from the foreign Press, translated, and from our own Press, to know that most people are feeling that with Europe more fully armed with more devastating weapons than ever before we are not marching towards peace but towards war. Nations do not arm for amusement; statesmen do not pile up aeroplanes and guns and shells merely in order that they may be looked at. Statesmen do not ask tremendous sacrifices of their own people unless there is something which they fear, and it is fear that is in the world to-day.
Like the Attorney-General, I spend my week-ends in the country, and I tell the House that never in all my experience, except at the beginning and during the War, have I ever found such a feeling of expectation that something dreadful was going to happen as I did last week-end; and I believe that anyone who got into touch with ordinary people in the train or in the street must have experienced what I did. I wish to ask the House whether the time has not arrived for us to take some new steps. I am speaking in the presence of men—I was just looking to see whether the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was present—who have attended various conferences since 1919 up to the present moment. I have sat in the House and joined in welcoming them home. Our hopes have risen very high, and we have said to ourselves, "Thank God, we are now on the road to something like disarmament and peace." I am not standing here to attempt to apportion blame or to rebuke anyone, or to do anything to censure any individual or any group of individuals, but I am here to say that we who represent the people of Britain have a responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "You!"] By "we" I meant all of us. We ought to be doing something more than has already been done.
In spite of all we have been doing, however well-intentioned it was, and however much we have striven, the result is what we see to-day. Every Government
puts it on to somebody else. The Germans put it on to the Versailles Treaty; the French put it on to something else. The Russian Government, which in spite of what some people may say of them I am sure do not want to fight outside Soviet Russia, defend their armaments on the plea that they fear attack either in the Far East or along the shores of the Baltic. The end of it all up to the moment is that Germany has, as it were, flung down a challenge to the world, and is demanding what is called equality of status in the comity of nations, an equality of status which not only recognises her as a great Power with equal rights and privileges with other nations but the right to tear up the Treaty and to embark on a policy of armaments which everyone in this House and in the world knows must inevitably lead to a race in armaments which must plunge us ultimately into war and, as has often been said, the destruction of civilisation. We think quite definitely that in these circumstances the Government—I will not say the Government, I will say this House—ought to recognise that we have an imperative duty to make the very greatest effort possible to save civilisation. I am not going to attempt to argue unilateral disarmament, but the real difficulty about armament is that once you say that you are bringing your forces up to a certain point those who think you may be a potential enemy feel that they must go above that point. We think that in going to Berlin the Foreign Secretary should go there with an altogether new mandate.
I have often said that Great Britain is the greatest imperialist Power in the world to-day, that is to say, our Dominions stretch right over the world. We have been performing a great service during the years of our existence in opening up the great waterways of the world, and in any question of disarmament we have, I admit, the most to give. I want us to give that—full measure, pressed down, running over. I want our country to take the lead in saying to the world: "We will lay on the altar of disarmament this business of aerial warfare. We are willing to give up for good and for all, with other nations"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. I want us to fling down a challenge on the conference table, that Great Britain will be ready
to give up aerial warfare everywhere, and will also be willing that the great airways of the world shall be internationalised and open for the aircraft of the world, together with the fuelling stations and everything necessary for the carrying on of civil aviation.
I want our country to say that we are willing—we, the great British Empire, are willing—to take our chance of what will happen in an earnest endeavour to put an end once and for all to this foul business of fighting from the skies. I believe, if we did this, that most other things would fall into their proper proportion. When I say "I," I am speaking for all my friends too. We feel this terrifically, because we are convinced that if we start with Germany armed, admitting her right to arm and getting her into the League armed, with France armed and the world armed again, this deadly business of aerial warfare will come again, and will once more threaten the whole future of mankind. It is said very often, and it has been said here before, that other people will not do this. I repeat that we want that our country shall make the challenge. If we are not successful, we cannot help it. At least, we shall have tried. We shall have done what one nation can do to show the world that we are really in earnest on that side of the question.

Mr. DORAN: We have already done that.

Mr. LANSBURY: The point I made is, I think, quite understood. I want to go one step farther. We who sit here cannot agree that the Foreign Secretary shall go to Berlin and say that our country agrees to the rearmament of Germany in the fashion in which she has been rearming. I am not asking that the Foreign Secretary to-day shall give us an answer on that, although I hope I shall hear something about the first proposition, but we want to make it absolutely clear that our view of pacts, and our view of peace or preparations for peace, are based not on rearmament but on disarmament. The country outside is distressed beyond measure, those who are thinking about these questions, that after 20 years we should now be discussing peace pacts and peace treaties on the basis of each nation piling up more arms in order, as is sometimes said, to be ready to do their quota
in defence of the pacts, treaties, covenants and the rest of them. I do not believe that anyone ever imagined, when we started out on this question of bringing security, that we would reach the stage which we have now reached, when we say to one another, as nations: "We will sign this, agreeing not to attack one another, and agreeing to defend each other," and then immediately go home and commence arming against each other, or for each other, however you choose to put it. Ordinary people in the street who have to bear this burden do not understand that kind of reasoning, and I do not either. So I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to make the nations of Europe understand that the policy of His Majesty's Government is peace based on disarmament and not upon rearmament.
There is one other question I want to raise. Nations fear one another for reasons. There is reason in unreason very often. We are convinced, and we want to put this on record, that the Government, and not our Government only but all Governments, committed a great blunder in not reassembling that economic conference which broke up a little while ago. We have all made fun, or tried to do so, about certain happenings there, but there is not a man who has thought about these things but knows perfectly well that until the economic relationships between nations are put on a different footing from what they are to-day we shall never have peace or security. Therefore, we hope that the Government will not only devote their minds and attention to the disarmament that comes from lowering your effective force for fighting, but that they will devote their minds to bringing about such a world conference as will deal with the questions which divide nations and bring about quotas, tariffs, restrictions and so on. There is not an hon. Member or right hon. Member opposite but would agree that if we could get the world to mobilise raw material and to organise markets, that would be an infinitely better thing than all this fiddling with tariffs and quotas and the rest of it.
The real thing is that we want to get the Government to take the line that there is room enough in the world for all, raw material enough in the world for all, and markets in abundance for all, if they were
properly organised. The world is faced with an economic condition which is not made by God or nature, but has grown up haphazard into a rather chaotic system, and which now calls for the highest wisdom of the statesmen and others who rule in the world. We want the Government, instead of giving so much time to what we consider is the secondary part of the problem, to get down to the consideration of a fundamental of the problem. This I would say in conclusion: I do not believe anybody in any country really wants war. I do not believe there are any people who enjoy killing. I know there are brutes in the world, but I am speaking of nations. "You cannot indict a nation." I think it was Burke who said that and it is true. There are brutes, there are people, who appear to be outside the pale everywhere, but the common, ordinary people in the world want to live in peace and harmony with one another. The "Times" the other day gave a report of a football match in Paris. A wonderful story was told. I read another one to-day of French and German horsemen in Berlin. It proves that if you ask the ordinary people, all that they want of one another is the opportunity of exchange in sports, to emulate one another, or to interchange their goods with one another. What stands in the way? I believe it is the bankruptcy of statesmanship which stands in the way everywhere. We stick to-the old ideas. We stick to the notion that in some way the evil of someone else may be our good, or that our good cannot be obtained unless it is at the cost of someone else. We do not believe that.
I want, finally, to say that while there are not many men here of my age, there are some who have lived through perilous, terrible days. A big price was paid in 1914–18, and the cry then was that only by those means could we destroy militarism. You cannot cast out war by war. You can only cast out war by the way of peace, and in no other way, and all the world, and ourselves especially, had better face up to that. In the name of my friends and myself, I appeal to this House not to let the days and months slip away until we find ourselves once more plunged into a war to destroy militarism. Let us destroy it now, by putting it out of our hearts, and putting in its place not merely the love of peace but
the way of peace; and let us say that at all costs we will find that way, and we will find it not merely for the benefit of the British people, but the people of the whole world.

4.4 p.m.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken to the House to-day, and to the country, with all his accustomed sincerity, and, I think, with even more than his accustomed force. He has expressed sentiments which must find an echo in the hearts of all of us. We must all desire that these general ideas of peace and disarmament, and the abolition particularly of aerial warfare, should come into the sphere of international politics, and result in something definitely accomplished. I think that to-day the House will not wish to engage in any general, protracted or controversial Debate, although I confess that I could very much desire to take advantage of this opportunity to offer some reply to a speech that was delivered ten days ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), in which I was unfortunate enough to suffer under his animadversions—a speech very effective at the moment, but which, I venture to think, would be open to easy reply on some occasion perhaps more suitable than to-day. To-day we are all thinking of the closely impending visit of the Foreign Secretary to Berlin. And we are very conscious that a Parliament cannot negotiate, that an assembly of 615 Members cannot draft protocols. It is only Ministers who can negotiate, and while we in this House may be able, in some degree, to convey what we think are the broad desires of the nation, it is for the Government to act, and for us to judge the Government by the results that are obtained.
Our first duty to-day, I think, is a negative one. It rests on all of us to do nothing and to say nothing that is likely to hamper or embarrass the Foreign Secretary in the most difficult and momentous negotiations in which he is about to engage. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken in no degree used language of exaggeration when he described the effect upon the mind of the British people of the declaration of Germany last Saturday. There has been here, and, I am sure, also in
other countries, a widespread feeling of alarm, of resentment, and, indeed, of anger at this event, and it is natural that the first reaction should be a desire to enter an immediate protest, and, perhaps, an indictment. Those—and there are very many in this country—who feel a deep aversion from many of the features of the present regime in Germany, which exalts force over justice, entertain even more than others this natural sentiment which I have just expressed. Natural these sentiments are, but we have to consider whether merely to vent them will lead to any substantial and useful result. The greatest service that Great Britain can render to France at this juncture is to secure effective results towards the objects which we have in common, and I am inclined to think that during the last year or two we might have effected more if we had proceeded more than we have done on our own initiative and in our own way.
I believe it has been a mistake in these prolonged negotiations for one group of nations to act as a group, and to agree among themselves, not indeed upon the text of proposed documents, but upon the general principles of pacts and declarations, and then, as a group, to make those agreements public to all the world, and afterwards to present them to the other party, namely, to Germany, to be accepted, or rejected or amended. That procedure has not proved very successful hitherto, and I am not disposed to criticise His Majesty's Government for having on the present occasion taken a somewhat different course. I can well understand that this has evoked a feeling elsewhere of annoyance. This country, unhappily, has sometimes a reputation in other lands of unreliability, and occasionally we are accused of perfidy. I think the reason is that the British nation has been trained, by long centuries of experience, to try to look at these great matters from other people's point of view. That quality is a sign of strength and wisdom in a nation, but when we do that, those who have been, and are, and will be acting with us, fail to understand our attitude, and think that we are weakening, or abandoning the standpoint which we have taken in common.
We have done it in our own Imperial affairs. When great crises have arisen
in Canada, in earlier days, or in South Africa, we have tried to understand the other people's point of view, and to meet whatever is reasonable in it, and by such procedure we have usually arrived at a settlement. Where we have not done that, as in the case of the Irish, we have failed; and if we do not do it in the case of the Indians to-day, we shall fail there. Never was this quality more necessary than in these days in connection with Germany. Undoubtedly, the position stated in the French note just published is, from the juridical point of view, unanswerable, and if the matter were merely one of international law there could be no two opinions as to what the judgment must be. But the events of the last 16 years have undermined the moral basis on which any juridical action might be taken. The neglect of the great allied Powers to reduce effectively, and on a large scale, their own armaments, has, as I say, taken away the foundation for any action that might otherwise be taken at this moment. We declare that this country could never agree to unilateral disarmament for itself, and the French say the same. We declare that unilateral disarmament would be contrary to our own honour, and would imperil our own safety. We are not likely to be willing to take any strenuous action in order to enforce unilateral disarmament upon another people, and therefore it has long been apparent that Part V of the Treaty of Versailles, failing general disarmament throughout Europe, could not have remained indefinitely as a feature of the international life of Europe. That is of the essence of the present situation.
But when that has been said, not all has been said—far from it. That is the present phase in which we see the liquidation of the impossible position created by the Treaty of Versailles. But what is to be the next phase? We all know that there is a school of thought in Germany which has a poor, indeed a contemptuous, opinion of all that is summed up in the words "a collective system of control." They may cynically pay it lip-service for the time being, in order to keep the attention of others occupied while they arm and re-arm more and more in order to make themselves wholly self-reliant and independent. They are not ready to take any genuine part in working a collective
system of international control, or, if they came into it, they would come in with the concealed intention of showing that it is futile, and perhaps helping to make it so. As soon as they were strong enough, they would be prepared to declare that they had no intention of accepting any agreed limitation, but would be determined to arm to the utmost extent possible according to their numbers and resources. They do not fear a race of armaments, because they are sure that they would be able to win it. And let the House remember this one point, that while this country is terribly handicapped financially in any measures of self-defence it may require to take, by the enormous national debt which rests upon its shoulders—£7,000,000,000 and more—Germany, through the inflation of currency and other measures, has almost wiped out its pre-war and war debt, and has a debt at the present time in the neighbourhood of £600,000,000 or thereabouts, compared with the £7,000,000,000 on which we do, or should, pay interest and sinking fund.
This school of thought in Germany attaches importance to the ideas of might, of struggle and of victory, thinking that these alone are the things worth while in human life; seeking power for the sake of power, and predominance for the glory of predominance, and holding the idea that the warrior is the only hero. Weltherrschaft oder Niedergang—world lordship or downfall. These ideas are based upon the philosophy of Neitzsche and the politics of Treitschke, and, we know, are exceedingly powerful among a very large body of that virile nation. We can well imagine their saying, not publicly, but in their hearts, "We have been successful in shaking off the yoke of this dictated treaty; the circle surrounding us has been broken; Britain and France have fallen out, and it is clear once more that a single resolute united nation is more than a match for five or six quarrelling Powers, each split into a number of irreconcilable political parties." We should be foolish indeed if we were to blind our eyes to its existence. It may be now, or it may become, dominant in Germany, and in this critical hour it is right that warning voices should be raised in this and in other Parliaments that those who hold these views in Germany are profoundly misunderstanding
the situation if they think that the British people are either ignorant of or indifferent to it. Equality of status for Germany, yes; military predominance, no. It is certain that the next phase will be this: If those ideas which I have described become predominant in Germany, the neighbouring countries will draw more closely together, not for the sake of hostile encirclement of Germany, but for their own mutual protection. There is a maxim which that school in Germany would be well advised to remember:
He who makes many afraid of him has himself many to fear.
Within each nation there will come about a consolidation of opinion of people of all parties, and those who most hate war and militarism will be not the least ready to join in the defence of the collective system which they regard as the only alternative to a lasting world anarchy. Let Germany, therefore, having insisted upon and secured the liquidation of the impossible position under the Treaty of Versailles, not think of defying world opinion for a second time. Let her rejoin the comity of nations; let here return to the League, and let her work with others for the maintenance of that peace which is essential to the welfare of her own people as of all the other peoples in the world. I trust that the outcome of the visit of the Foreign Secretary may be that, after an interval for negotiation and discussion, the interrupted work of the Disarmament Conference may be resumed, and perhaps on a new basis. Let us hope especially that those measures dealing with air fighting to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred may secure again a prominent place. We should deeply regret that the League of Nations should become, or even have the appearance of becoming, nothing more than a collective council of the Powers allied in the War. It is essential that its structure should be completed.
We in this House have, of course, our domestic differences and controversies on some of these questions, and it is right and wholesome that it should be so. A House of Commons which only applauded the Government of the day, and never criticised it, even when Members thought that criticism was required, would be of small value either to the nation or, indeed, to the Government itself. We on these benches must maintain,
and will maintain, the right, which we also regard as the duty, of criticising the conduct of diplomatic affairs and the absence of the results which we have desired should be obtained. But when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the day, whoever he may be and whatever may be the colour of the Government of which he is a Member, goes abroad on difficult and momentous negotiations in pursuit of objects which are common to all of us, he goes as the emissary of the nation, and he ought to be assured in this House that he has behind him the full force of combined national support.

4.20 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): When on Monday last the Leader of the Opposition gave notice that he wished the opportunity for a debate to be provided on this subject this week, before the Berlin visit was undertaken, there were, I suspect, other Members besides myself who doubted very much whether a debate here to-day would be of public advantage. Nothing, if I may presume to say so, could have been better calculated to respect the public interest than the way in which the two right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have framed their speeches. The Leader of the Opposition made an appeal, all the more impressive because of its sincerity and its simplicity of statement, and the Government are greatly indebted both to him and to my right hon. Friend who has just sat down for abstaining, as they have, entirely from words which would complicate an admittedly very difficult task. Certainly, for me, this occasion greatly restricts what can be usefully or wisely said on behalf of His Majesty's Government to-day. There are occasions when we are all disposed to feel, and more particularly to feel about one another, that it is well to abstain even from good words.
After all, we hope to have in a very few days' time a frank discussion with the Chancellor of Germany—for the Berlin visit calls for complete frankness; and a discussion of that sort cannot be preceded by a public rehearsal at Westminster. And there is another point. It is well understood in this House and outside that this series of visits about to be undertaken by the Lord Privy Seal and myself to Berlin, Moscow and Warsaw, are exploratory in character.
They are for the very purpose which was well defined just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) when he said that what you had to do was to inquire and learn the points of view of others rather than to reach a precise position of your own and then present it to other people to accept. Of course, the time will come when whatever may be the outcome of these visits will be considered hereafter, and I shall not be found then willing to urge upon the House a restraint which I do urge to-day.
I think it would be useful, before these visits take place, to remind the House, and to take the opportunity of reminding the country outside, how it has come about that the proposal for this visit to Berlin has been accepted. Everybody realises that the suggestion emerged from what are called the London conversations, and from the joint communiqué that was issued on the 3rd February, after we had had here in London, British Ministers and French Ministers, two days of very fruitful discussion. If the House would allow me, I would quote three very short passages from the London communiqué which was then issued. First, the opening words were that the object of that meeting was
to promote the peace of the world by closer European co-operation … and to remove those tendencies which, if unchecked, are calculated to lead to a race in armaments and to increase the dangers of war.
Secondly, in the course of this declaration at the beginning of last month, the British and French Ministers set out that the progress must be continued
by means of the direct and effective cooperation of Germany";
and near the close of the document there is a statement which is well worth quotation again:
They earnestly desire that all the countries concerned should appreciate that the object of this proposal is to reinforce peace—the sole aim pursued by the two Governments.
That was the origin of the visit which is now about to take place. Some 10 days later the German Government published its reply, and in that reply it proposed an Anglo-German meeting. It is sometimes the impression that we have dealt with the matter entirely ourselves, without the help and consideration of others, but that is not so. Let me just
give the dates. We received that communication on the 15th February, and considered it. Before we answered it we communicated with both the French and the Italian Governments. We received from both those Governments an answer expressing their approval of the visit proposed, and it was after getting that intimation of approval that I had the duty of stating to the House—and I took the first opportunity here in the House of making the announcement, at the Monday sitting on the 25th February—that we had accepted the German invitation, and that the French and Italian Governments had approved of the course of action proposed. Not only so, but before the dates originally fixed for the Berlin visit I had the opportunity, through being in Paris, of having a personal consultation with the French Government, and I think it is quite clear that the decision which was arrived at to pay this visit to Berlin was one which was approved, not only at home, but abroad.
I would like in a sentence or two to point out to the House the two considerations which I thought then and which I think now are vital. The first is this: There had been a meeting, a bilateral meeting, a meeting of two Governments in Rome, the French and the Italian. There had been a meeting, indeed more than one, bilateral again, in Paris. There had been a meeting—the one to which I have just referred—here in London, all of them meetings between two Governments, not always the same Government. There had been no meeting with Germany. And here we were issuing this London Declaration, in which, as I have just reminded the House, we said that the time had come for pursuing these efforts by means of the direct and effective cooperation of Germany, and we received from Germany the answer that they recognised the fair and the friendly tone of this document and invited us to come.
That was the first consideration which I thought at the time was a very strong and indeed an overwhelming reason, for deciding on this visit. The second consideration was, before you undertake a visit of this gravity you must have some clear understanding of what is the scope and the purpose of the discussion. Mere general compliments, just like mere
generalities on so many other things, will not carry the matter materially further, and therefore, even after the exchanges which I have just described between various capitals—we were not yet satisfied, and we addressed ourselves again to the Germans in order that we might have it made entirely clear that the scope and purpose of the meeting which they proposed was not to be limited to some particular item raised in the London Communiqué but was to have the full width of subject matter dealt with in that communique, and indeed was to have the fourfold basis, exchange of views on the subject of security, exchange of views on the subject of armaments, exchange of views on the subject of the return of Germany to the League of Nations, and exchange of views on the subject of the proposed Air Pact. It was only when we had the assurance that it was intended on the German side that the discussions should be as wide as that, that we communicated with other Governments and reached conclusions, and let the House observe this, because this is the point, that not only were those four topics thus marked down, but it was the basis of our proposed meeting that they should be discussed with a view ultimately to reaching a solution by agreement.
It was in those circumstances that the event occurred at the end of last week to which the Leader of the Opposition referred in such grave, and, I think, such appropriate terms just now. He was not exaggerating at all when he said that all over this country the German announcement of last Saturday came as a profound shock. It has inevitably provoked protests from this Government and the French Government, and the Italian Government, but I want to put to the House—and I shall of course, do it in the most measured language—what I think is the real point of the difficulty which has been raised in so many minds by that declaration a few days ago. Of course, there is a long history behind all this, and we should indeed be foolish if we forgot that history. Nothing that I am saying is designed to prejudice any issue or to dismiss any grievance on any side, but for the purpose of this meeting the real point is that the object of the impending discussions was to promote adjustment by agreement. I must say that that is
the very reverse of adjustment by unilateral pronouncement, and a very grave question arises as to the proper course to be taken. Everybody can see—I should do no good if I attempted to suppress so obvious a reflection—that unilateral denunciation, whatever the explanation may be, inevitably raises questions as to the value of agreements, and that is a very bad preparation for future agreements.
I am sure that everybody will agree that in those circumstances we were bound to protest, but I present to the House the view—and I trust that it will be approved—that, none the less, the course which we have tried to take with reference to this most grave event is the wiser course. To refuse to go, to cancel your engagement, why Sir, it leads you nowhere. We demanded and obtained an assurance that the scope of the conversations which I have already described should be in no way restricted. We are satisfied that the present state of suspicion and unrest in Europe cannot be allayed without securing by negotiation and agreement a result on all the four matters which I have mentioned, and in those circumstances, adding that reservation and protest, we have taken the view—I believe it to be the true view, and I am sure it is the long view—that it is neccessary and right to continue this visit.
But there is one more observation that I must make about the German announcement. It is not only the date of the announcement; it is the nature and contents of the announcement which throw such a disturbing light on the prospect of settlement by agreement. Nobody would wish that we should enter upon figures to-day, but this is the point to be borne in mind, the figure indicated by that declaration for German effectives is so large, is so considerable an advance over figures suggested less than a year ago, and indeed exceeds what any Power in Western Europe at the present time could match. That, as has been pointed out in our despatch to Germany, raises grave doubts as to whether, if such figures were persisted in, agreement with some of Germany's neighbours would be possible.
I trust that I have spoken with discretion but with plainness—it is necessary to be plain—about a very serious event, but that does not in our view
affect the desirability of carrying out the Berlin visit. We go there, as everybody knows, as the sincere friends of general peace, determined to do everything that Britain can do to promote it and to secure it, and I will take the opportunity of saying this with great deliberation, by one means or by another means the peace of Europe has to be preserved. We are not going to bear the reproach—the British people I am sure would never willingly do so—of leaving anything undone which might help to make peace more secure by the better means. The object of British policy has been—and this is the better means—to help to bring this great State back into the councils and comity of Europe on terms which are just to her and which are fair and secure for all of us, so that she with her great talents and resources may contribute with a full sense of equal status and dignity to the task which every good European who wants peace has got to share, and that is the task of sustaining and strengthening general peace by good relations and by agreement and by co-operation between neighbours.
The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last said that the Government would be judged by results. Well, the responsibility does not rest entirely upon this island. Other people have to make their contribution too, and Germany will have to make her contribution if we are to agree. That is the better method, and that therefore is the task which I am sure everybody here wants to promote and to sustain. For if that is not the method, then what is the alternative? The alternative is bound to be a far less satisfactory system, a system of select and special combinations for assistance againt the danger in our midst, whereas what we are striving for, what we are all striving for, is increased confidence between all European States, based on firm understanding and general agreement.
Holding those views—and I believe they are views which are shared by practically all my fellow countrymen—it is scarcely necessary to say that we are not contemplating any special agreement between this country and any other. Visiting Berlin, or Moscow or Warsaw does not mean that we have turned our back on Paris, or Rome or Brussels, and, I would add, or Geneva. But a European system
can only be solid if it is comprehensive. Whatever may be the regional agreements which my right hon. Friend below the Gangway pointed out in his speech the other day should underpin, or whatever should be the wider structure of, the League, it is the gaps in the ranks of the League which undermine so much of its strength, and in this effort to promote contribution and co-operation between all, I am sure everybody is glad to note that my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will be meeting Signor Suvich, representing Italy, and Monsieur Laval in Paris on Saturday, and that after this series of visits which we are undertaking is over, there will be further meetings—how glad we should be if Germany would take part in them—in which, among others, Signor Mussolini himself intends to take part. There can be no misunderstanding more gross than for anybody to suppose that these meetings, wherever they may be, are directed against somebody else. Our object is to get everybody to face the facts and to face them ourselves, and all the facts. For that purpose, I submit to the House that direct contact and complete frankness are the only hopeful methods. Failing to meet, striking people off your visiting list—that is only going to increase the danger of Europe drifting down to the whirlpool.
No one has better reason than my right hon. Friend and I to know the tremendous difficulties of these problems; no one is less tempted than we are to magnify in advance the possibility of good results; no one is more deeply conscious of the importance, the overwhelming importance, of doing our best and of giving every chance for useful results. Whether the results are good or bad, whether they are positive or negative, they will be important. It is no easy road which my right hon. Friend and I are setting out upon, but it is the duty—as the Leader of the Opposition said, the imperative duty—of Britain to undertake the part worthy of our universal devotion to world peace; and in entering upon this new stage of our country's task, I feel confident that we shall undertake our part in it with the good will and the good wishes of the House and the country. For the road that we have chosen, difficult though it be to tread, is the only possible way to better and deeper understanding.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I rise partly because I wish to raise a critical voice in the House of Commons. I think that nothing could be worse than the idea that the Foreign Secretary for Great Britain is speaking for a country that is all of one mind and that there are not different angles of approach to this problem. That is the terrifying thing about the position of Hen Hitler in Germany, the terrifying thing about his great diplomatic stroke of this last week-end, announcing his conscription measures, that this voice is heard from Germany and not a single dissent, not a single critical voice, is heard. That is the essence of dictatorship, and if we are going to adopt devices of hush, hush in the British House of Commons, we are arriving at the same end by a different route.
I want to raise my voice here very briefly. I question the desirability of the right hon. Gentleman's visit now. It is all very well to say that it would be foolish to cut these people off our visiting list, that that never does any good. Certainly it was a policy that was pursued for an extended number of years so far as Soviet Russia was concerned. It was believed to be effective in that case, because Soviet Russia had outraged certain principles held by Governments. The German régime has outraged the general standards of civilisation in a way unparalleled. There have been dictators in other countries and in other times, but I never knew yet the dictator who turned round and shot the people who helped to put him in power, within a month or two of his getting into power. It is horrible and revolting. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] It has never happened in Russia. Never at any time did the Russian Government execute or imprison the people who belonged to what they call the old Bolshevist party. Whatever deviations there may have been, whatever differences there may have been, they never adopted drastic methods towards the men who put them in power. But do not take me off on to that.
We are not merely continuing diplomatic relations, but we are sending our Foreign Secretary on a personal visit over there to discuss, I do not know
what. He is going to speak for Britain. I am a part of Britain, and I have not the faintest idea what he is going to say behind closed doors when he gets to Berlin. I do know that up till now, in the last few days, Great Britain has presented itself to the other nations with whom it was co-operating—Italy, France, and Russia—as having deserted them in a crucial situation. That is the impression that is created in Europe just now, that at this moment, by going to Berlin for friendly conversations, Great Britain has left its three associates, who are all supposed to be working towards common ends, in the lurch. [HON. MEMBERS; "No."] That is not the view of the Foreign Secretary obviously, nor is it the view of those who support the Government, but it is the view that one gathers from the Italian, the French, and the Russian Press. They believe that they have been deserted and that Britain has gone off on a line of its own. That is the impression.
I noticed that in the right hon. Gentleman's speech he prepared us for trivial or negative results. He does not seem to hold out to himself a very optimistic view of the possibilities of his mission, but having destroyed—or I will not say destroyed, but made poorer—the relationship with Italy, France, and Russia by his action in this matter, it will be indeed a pathetic act of foreign diplomacy if he goes to Germany, having reduced his relations with the other countries, and comes back with nothing as a result of that visit. For very many years—or rather, for I do not want to talk as an old man, each year—I have heard Foreign Ministers, aye, and Prime Ministers, making similar speeches, when we sent them off with Godspeed and all our good wishes with them to Berlin, or Vienna, or Warsaw, or somewhere else, and back they came. Conversations had taken place, undoubted progress had been made, and to-day we are facing a widespread rearmament of Europe as a result of all the successful visits and the private conversations that have taken place.
It seems to me that the era of this secret diplomacy is long past, that the public utterance of Herr Hitler last weekend, shouted out to the world, was a greater diplomatic stroke than all the conversations that have taken place during the last 17 years. It has given
him the initiative in world affairs and left all the other nations blundering and wondering where they were, and it has horrified all the peoples. My view, held very strongly, is that diplomacy must not take place behind closed doors and between foreign ministers, but that the voices of the people should be raised and shouted across the frontiers to one another. After all, if the German situation, which I agree is the biggest menace to world peace to-day, is going to be solved, it is going to be solved by the German people. The German people, hammered at this moment down into silence, is not a different German people essentially from those with whom we were in friendly association, believing that they had very similar ideas to our own, a short matter of three or four years ago. That general German point of view still exists, though beaten down and crushed into silence, and British diplomacy, and certainly the diplomacy of the British working class, should be directed towards the end of making the voiceless German workers have a voice again.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Colonel GRETTON: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

4.59 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: I am not going to detain the House for more than a moment, and I very seldom speak, but I want to say that in some respects I am in agreement with the statement just made by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). To some degree the Foreign Secretary has not communicated to the House all we should have liked to hear. He told us something, but not all. He did not tell us what his mission hopes to accomplish. The situation now is not in all respects the same as it was when he made his inquiries and found that the visit which he was intending would be acceptable in Berlin. Since that occurred there have been the announcements made in the last week of the very large increase Germany intends to make, without agreement with anybody, in her armed forces. Those
announcements are not news to those who have troubled to inform themselves about the situation. They are very startling to those who listened to the comforting and soothing speeches and statements as to the limitation of armaments and the policy of the Disarmament Conferences.
In some respects I think it is a good thing that the German Government should have publicly announced their real intention. It has swept away a great deal of the misrepresentation and humbug which has been talked in this country and elsewhere in Europe. What I do regret, and I think it should be expressed by someone in this House, is the very hurried and, indeed, precipitate reply to, the German Note, sent apparently without explanation to, or the previous knowledge of, those Powers with whom there have been conferences and understandings in London. Surely it would have been more in accord with diplomatic procedure and courtesy that the French and Italian Governments should have been made aware of the terms of that communication before it was sent to Berlin.
The impression has undoubtedly been created in this country and on the Continent that in this matter the British Government are not acting in entire accord and conformity with the combined action and understanding believed to have been reached at the conference in London, to endeavour to arrive at some agreement on armaments and on the modification of the Treaty of Versailles with regard to German armaments by the mutual and combined action of several Powers. It is desirable that this should be said, and for that reason I have asked the indulgence of the House. In this matter, the Foreign Secretary and the Government have not entirely commanded the confidence of a good many people in this country, and as the Foreign Secretary truly said what is done in Berlin—whatever it may be—will be scanned and examined critically and with the gravest anxiety. We hope and trust, beyond all, that he will not, in anything to which he may agree, make Britain a sacrifice and victim to European unity.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[3RD ALLOTED DAY.]

REPORT [14TH MARCH.]

Resolutions reported,

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1935.

1."That 94,482 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 888 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £12,868,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,209,750, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,281,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine)—Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

NAVY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934.

6." That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £150,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure beyond the sum already pro vided in the grants for Navy Services for the year."

First Resolution read a Second time.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move to leave out "94,482," and to insert instead thereof "92,482."
We leave a debate of very great importance to resume one of detail concerning the Navy. Vote A is
one of the most important Votes for it deals with the number of officers and men who are provided for during the course of the next year. The Vote on this account is important in so far as it shows that there is to be an increase of over 2,000 officers and men provided for this year as compared with last year. The numbers provided for under Vote A now reach the numbers which were provided before the London Treaty was entered into. It is as well to quote the statement issued by the then First Lord in dealing with this question of the personnel of the Navy. In his Memorandum which accompanied the Estimates of 1931, and referring to personnel, on page 4, he said:
Further, the provisions of the London Naval Treaty relating to the earlier scrapping of capital ships have been a main factor in effecting a saving of cost on personnel, amounting in this Estimate to some £400,000. The Vote A figure of 1931, 93,000, represents the number expected to be borne on the first day of the new financial year, and that number is expected to fall almost entirely by annual wastage to 91,800 by the 31st March, 1932
I think it was the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty who, two years ago, in dealing with the Vote for personnel, referred to the fact that you must relate personnel to your Fleet. If you are to relate personnel to your Fleet it can be argued very strongly that the Fleet at the present time does not demand the number of men provided for in the Estimate of this year.
At this point let me make it clear that we on this side of the House are not averse from providing the necessary men for the proper drafting, and, shall I say, for the proper comfort, of those who go into the Navy, but at the same time there must be some explanation by the First Lord and the representatives of the Admiralty as to why this increase is necessary, in so far as there is a considerable reduction in the tonnage of the Admiralty at the present time. We find that in 1925 there were 22 battleships as against 15 now, 43 cruisers as against 50—there is an increase there at the present time—192 destroyers as against 161 and 61 submarines as against 51. The personnel of the Navy in 1921 was 100,280. Therefore, notwithstanding the great reduction in the tonnage to which I have referred, there are only 5,700 fewer provided for in the Vote this year than were provided for in the Vote of 1925.
The First Lord, in his Memorandum with the Estimates this year, says that the increase is due to the replacement of old ships by new ships. The replacement of course, is simply replacement. There ought not to be very much difference in the number of personnel required with the type of ship which is now being commissioned to replace the old ships. I would ask the First Lord whether these figures are going up year after year until such time as we build up a personnel which cannot be usefully employed by the Fleet. It must be remembered that this matter was very carefully gone into in 1929, and the reductions which took place between 1929 and 1932 were with the full consent of the Board of Admiralty, and there was no difficulty or dispute about it. The great fall in personnel was not at the time the London Naval Treaty came into operation. The great fall in the personnel of the Navy was from 1927 to 1930. The last three Estimates which were submitted by the then Conservative Government, of which the present First Lord was a member, show in those three years a fall of no fewer than 7,000 in the personnel provided for under Vote A. That is all I am going to say concerning the general question.
I would like to ask the First Lord as to whether there is any difference in compiling these Estimates this year as compared with the preparation of the Estimates last year. I have gone very carefully into this question, and the only statement comparable with the numbers which appear on page 16 of the Estimates of this year is on page 35 of the Estimates of 1934. In making comparison of the numbers of officers and men there are some striking differences. I am very much inclined to ask the First Lord, even now, as to whether there is some difference in this compilation. The Admiralty is usually very careful in preparing its Estimates. I have not for some time seen anything more misleading than the comparison as between these two pages. The comparison giving the figures of the actual number of commissioned officers shows that this year, as compared with last year, there is an increase of no fewer than 815. Taking the number of flag officers, on page 35 of the Navy Estimates for 1934 we find that the number of flag officers provided is 24. In the statement this year I find
that the number of flag officers provided is 39, or an increase of 15. If you take the commissioned officers, the executive, in 1934 the number provided was 2,902. According to this statement this year, the number is 3,231 or an increase of 329. There must be an explanation of that. There is a tremendous increase not only in the number of executive officers and engineering officers, but also in the number of school masters. I did not know that the officers and men of the Navy were very badly off from the point of view of education before 1934 to warrant, in accordance with this Estimate, an increase in the number of school masters from 61 to 143. That, surely, is something of which there must be an explanation, and I should like the First Lord to give an explanation before I go into the matter in any further detail.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: They are taught foreign languages.

Mr. HALL: Not more so in 1935 than in 1934. At any rate, the change ought not to take place so suddenly. I cannot understand why there should be the desirability for so much instruction in foreign languages in such a short time. While there is this increase of 816 officers of all kinds, there is a reduction in the number of warrant officers by 83 and an increase in the number of petty officers and seamen of about 2,000. The increase of officers represents nearly one officer for every two petty officers and seamen during the year. I do not propose to follow that matter out at greater length because there must be an explanation of what one is inclined to think, when one reads the Estimates, an unreasonable increase.
Now I come to a question which I raised last year, and that is the increase in the number of recruiting officers and ratings. I cannot understand why there is this growing increase of recruiting officers and ratings. In 1933 the number of recruiting officers was 69. Between 1933 and 1934 there was an increase from 69 to 74, and from 1934 to 1935 there is a further increase from 74 to 96, making a total increase between 1933 and 1935 from 69 to 96. I cannot understand why, considering the increase in personnel that has taken place during the last two years, there is need for this very large increase in the number of recruiting officers and
ratings. I am not inclined to believe that there is a shortage of recruits for the Navy. I think the First Lord will frankly admit that for every 14 or 15 recruits who, apply for admission to the Navy only about one is accepted. Take the applicants from the Greenwich Hospital School. I do not say that all the entrants for the Navy should be taken from that school, but I would point out that more than half or, say, two-thirds of the boys who are eligible for admission into the Navy from that school are not accepted simply because the number required does not amount to the number who offer themselves. Therefore, I cannot see that there can be any justification for this very large increase in the number of recruiting officers.
I should like to ask the First Lord what is the position of the special entry of those who are likely to come from the civil educational establishments of the country. Can he give any idea of the proportion likely to be taken from those establishments during the course of the next year and the proportion that is likely to come from Dartmouth? We think that an increasing number should come from the civil educational esablishments, young men who are properly equipped and who would be a credit to the Navy and to themselves if greater opportunities were given to them to go into the Service. We cannot see that there is any justification whatsoever for this growing increase in the personnel of the Navy. The Parliamentary Secretary was questioned two years ago whether there was a possibility that in a year or two there would be a reduction instead of an increase, but that reduction has not come about. It seems to me that there is no settled policy on the part of the Board. From 1927 until 1932 there had been a very substantial reduction of something like 10,000, but in 1932 we were told that we had reached the datum line. Now, three years later, we have gone up, with the result that there are 5,000 more provided for in these Estimates than were provided for in 1932. The Board of Admiralty should have a settled policy in dealing with this matter instead of having these fluctuations during a period of years, such as we have had from 1927. It is for these reasons that I move that the number of men be reduced by 2,000.

5.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I should not have intervened except for one thing, and I do not propose to detain the House for many minutes, but I suggest to the hon. Member who has just spoken that when he says that these reductions were not made in the personnel of the Navy during the period of the last Conservative Government, I suggest that he is mistaken. I remember that we had reduced the personnel of the Navy, much to our regret, to a figure of about 99,000 by the time that the last Conservative Government went out of office. We did so with very great regret because we realised that it takes a very long time to make a first-class seaman, and that we must have a reserve of men for eventualities.

Mr. HALL: May I correct the hon. and gallant Member? I think he must admit that the numbers provided for in 1930 were included in the Estimates of 1929, and the Estimates for 1929 were presented by the Conservative Government. In that Estimate the number provided for was 94,921.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: If I have made a mistake I have been given the wrong figures. I know that we felt it necessary for economy's sake to reduce the figures by about 1,000. I thought that the total figure was about 99,000, but I accept the hon. Member's correction. What I desired to point out was that we did so with the greatest regret, realising that it was not in the interests of the Navy, because it is necessary to keep a good reserve. I am very glad that the Board of Admiralty has seen fit to increase the personnel.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The First Lord will remember that the other evening I spoke on the question of promotion from the lower deck, and pointed out that only one first-class certificate had been gained in navigation and one first-class certificate in torpedo work. The reason given to me was that there had not been sufficient preliminary training in these two important subjects. Will the Admiralty consider that point?

5.24 p.m.

Admiral of the Fleet Sir ROGER KEYES: Is it not a fact that the considerable reductions that were made in personnel between 1929 and 1932 caused
great hardship in some of the classes of personnel? I know of cases of men who had served abroad in China for two and a half years and had come home and had to go off at once to another foreign station simply and solely because there were too few men available. It is very necessary that these increases should be taken in hand at once.

5.25 p.m.

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): In reply to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks), I may say that I have gone into the details of the cases he mentioned the other night, and I can assure him that it is not an unusual thing for officers going in for their examination for lieutenants to get four firsts and one third. I think that was his complaint, and he thought there must be something wrong with the system. It is not an uncommon thing to happen. I have gone into a number of cases in which it has happened. I will quote three occasions; one of the officers reached the rank of admiral, the next reached the rank of vice-admiral, and the next the rank of rear-admiral. Therefore, they have not done so badly. I do not think there is anything wrong with the system that these men should fail in one of the five examinations. I will not say fail, but I will say fail to get first-class in one of the examinations.
With regard to the questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), I think the apparent difference or apparent increase in the number of officers is shown in the Navy Estimates for this year. It is really not misleading, as my hon. Friend suggested. He will find the explanation at the top of the two pages. The explanation, shortly, is this, that the numbers given in the 1935 Estimates, on page 16, include everybody who is paid under Vote A. In 1934, on page 35, the numbers that appeared there represented the numbers borne for sea service only. I can well understand my hon. Friend questioning this. It shows great vigilance on his part to have discovered it. If he goes into the comparable figures he will find that there has been no great rise. There have been certain ups and downs. As he knows, we cannot suddenly import officers into the Navy. We cannot suddenly
make them. They are not there in disguise.
Another question which the hon. Member asked me was about the schoolmasters. As he says, in comparing these two statements in the Estimates for 1934 and 1935 there is a real increase, and the reason for it is a very ordinary one. A rule has lately come into force whereby warrant officers, after having served 10 years, automatically become commissioned; officers. This increase is made up entirely of men who have come out of the category of warrant officers and have become commissioned officers. The increase is 78. The hon. Member also drew attention to the numbers of the recruiting service and pointed to the fact that they have gone up. That is true, but it follows on the-numbers of men and boys to be recruited. The extra numbers of recruiting officers are required because we have opened three new recruiting stations. I quite agree with the hon. Member that we have no trouble in getting recruits for the Royal Navy. We get an extraordinarily good type of boy. We have opened these new recruiting stations in big towns like Manchester in order to tap new areas and give to the boys of these districts a chance of knowing something about the Navy and what they have to do in order to join.
The last question put by the hon. Member was with regard to the number of men. I should like to convince him, if I can, on this topic. The hon. Member has always shown tremendous interest in the Navy, and I can assure him that this is appreciated at the Admiralty and in the Service. But really he is wrong on the question of men. May I put it to him in this way? It is quite true that there were reductions from 1927 to 1932, but when the hon. Member went to the Admiralty he found himself, as regards Vote A numbers, in the fat years. Men have to be entered into the Navy long before the ships for which they are intended are built. A great period of contraction had been going on before the hon. Member went to the Admiralty, and went on after he was there, and this may have given the impression that there was a surplus of men. It is true there was a surplus at that time, and it may have given him the impression that the ships of the Navy were being manned on an extravagant scale But that really was not the case.
The real reason why the Conservative Government and the late Labour Government were able to reduce Vote A numbers was because of the considerable reductions which were being made in our requirements. In 1927–28, out of the new-construction programme, three eight-inch gun cruisers were scrapped. In 1928–29, out of the new construction programme, 17 vessels of all sorts were scrapped. Under the London Naval Treaty five capital ships were scrapped, and the 1931 programme, for reasons of economy, was postponed. This meant that the men who had been entered on Vote A for these ships were surplus to our requirements. Having found this surplus, Mr. Amnion, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Admiralty, set up a committee to go into the question. He found that there was a surplus needed for the pool or margin, but that this was being employed in uneconomic ways. He found that a good many men were being employed as supernumeraries in the Mediterranean. They were brought home and added to the pool or margin. Let me say, for the benefit of those who do not understand what the pool or margin is, that it means men additional to those who are required actually to man our ships but who are necessary for various reasons. For instance, a margin or pool is necessary for foreign service and drafting leave, for re-engagement and pension leave, for reliefs in sending people out to China and other places, for men who are sick, for navigating parties and for training purposes. And a drafting margin is required on the top of that.
When I went to the Admiralty I found just the reverse of what the hon. Member found. I found an inadequate pool—not enough trained men. I saw at once what the result of an inadequate pool would be. It upsets the balance which we try to keep between foreign and home service in the fleet. It penalises the men. We want them to have a fair share of their service at home, and when they are in England we like to maintain a fair balance between sea and shore service, so that the men can spend part of their time in shore establishments and spend some time with their families. This means a tremendous lot to the men. But it means something more. Endless
changes during the commission of a ship make that ship inefficient. A commission of two and a half years is all too short for a ship to settle down. I have often envied the regimental feeling in the Army and have desired to get it in the Navy, a fine feeling in the ship, the men working together. But how can we do that when perhaps 50 per cent. of the men are shifted during the commission of the ship? That is what was happening. Endless changes in a ship mean inefficiency and hardship.
Now I come to the point when the surplus which the hon. Member had when he was at the Admiralty came to an end. The steady replacement of ships that is now taking place, as against the sporadic building programme which took place prior to the London Naval Treaty, makes it imperative to enter more men. I can assure the hon. Member that we are not asking for one man more than we want. Let me tell the hon. Member the reason. When he was at the Admiralty his party negotiated the London Naval Treaty, and I think we can assume that he and his party then thought that the figures which were allotted to this country under that Treaty were the minimum requirements for our defence at that time. That was five years ago. If they were the minimum requirements for defence at that time, they are certainly the minimum requirements for our defence to-day, and if the hon. Member and his party had remained in office they would have gone on with the programme which they inaugurated, and which we have followed ever since.
We have only now got the ships which the Labour Government thought were necessary for our defence. The hon. Member for Broxtowe, speaking for himself, and, I believe, for most of his party, said that we want an efficient Navy. If we want an efficient Navy we must have properly manned ships. Nothing makes more for inefficiency in a ship than when it is undermanned and, therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment for a reduction in the numbers of men.
As regards promotions from the lower deck; in 1933 there were six out of 17 candidates, and the comparable figures of entries via Dartmouth were 105, via special entry 23, and from the Mercantile Marine, seven. I think that
I have answered all the questions which have been put to me, and I hope that the party opposite will let us have this Vote without a Division.

Question put, "That '94,482' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 40.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[5.45 p.m.


Albery, Irving James
Glossop, C. W. H.
Pearson, William G.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
Peat, Charles U.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Goldie, Noel B.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Assheton, Ralph
Graves, Marjorie
Pybus, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th. C.)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Remer, John R.


Bernays, Robert
Hanbury, Cecil
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Blindell, James
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, George William


Boulton, W. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Hornby, Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Broadbent, Colonel John
Horsbrugh, Florence
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Buchan, John
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Jackson. Sir Henry (Wandsworth. C.)
Sandys, Edwin Duncan


Burnett, John George
Jamleson, Douglas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Savery, Samuel Servington


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Ker, J. Campbell
Selley, Harry R.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Carver, Major William H.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Knight, Holford
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Soper, Richard


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Law Sir Alfred
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Spent, William Patrick


Clarke, Frank
Leckie, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stones, James


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Storey, Samuel


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Levy, Thomas
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Strauss, Edward A.


Cooke, Douglas
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Cooper, A. Duff
Loftus, Pierce C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Copeland, Ida
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Crooke, J. Smedley
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Summersby, Charlee H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.).
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.(Pd'gt'n, S.)


Cross, R. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Thomas. James P. L. (Hertford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Davison, Sir William Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Denville, Alfred
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Doran, Edward
Martin, Thomas B.
Tryon, Ht. Hon. George Clement


Duggan, Hubert John
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Dunglass, Lord
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Turton, Robert Hugh


Eales, John Frederick
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wallace, Captain O. E. (Hornsey)


Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Milne, Charles
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Munro, Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fermoy, Lord
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Fox, Sir Gilford
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
O'Connor, Terence James
Womersley, Sir Walter


Fremantle, Sir Francis
O'Neill, Ht. Hon. Sir Hugh
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.



Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Orr Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peake, Osbert
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Maxton, James


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cleary, J. J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
West, F. R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Debbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.52 p.m.

Mr. G. HALL: There are two or three questions I wish to ask on this Vote. One is what I may describe as the hardy annual of Singapore. Here is an expenditure of £8,000,000 to £9,000,000, and, coupled with the expenditure of the other Services, there is a total of nearly £14,000,000 to be spent. This is the only opportunity we have of getting some kind of report from the Admiralty as to how the work is proceeding. I would like the Civil Lord to give the House an indication of what the position is at Singapore. There is another item of expenditure, for the provision of a mine depot at Milford Haven. A sum of £500,000 or thereabout is to be spent upon providing this depot. The only explanation we have in the Estimate is that the expenditure is to meet modern safety requirements. I ask the Civil Lord to explain what is the nature of this work and whether, if it is absolutely essential, and as Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock are a distressed area with a good deal of unemployment caused largely by the closing of Pembroke Dockyard, the work could be proceeded with as quickly as possible so as to provide employment.
One other matter relates to the question of annuities. It can be said that the Board of Admiralty have been very fortunate during the last two or three years in that the expenditure under this Vote has been reduced considerably as a result of the falling in of annuities. One of them was entered into as long as 40 years ago. In the course of the
next three years we shall pay off the total amount of money which has been raised as a result of these loans. Here we are, 40 years after the work was constructed by the decision of the then Board of Admiralty, paying the amounts of money which were required for that work. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes) has advocated this as a means of raising money for what he considers the necessary defence in the future. I hope he will take this lesson to heart. Here we are in 1935 paying off money which was borrowed in 1895 for providing work because of the then so-called menace. I trust that the Admiralty will take this matter very seriously in mind before coming to such a conclusion as the Board of Admiralty came to in 1895, that is to borrow money for necessary works of defence instead of meeting expenditure out of current income.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. BERNAYS: I wish to ask one question, and I assure my right hon. Friend the First Lord that I do so in no spirit of hostility, but only to get information. It is with regard to the repair of cruisers, and an item on page 374 of the Estimates. I see that in the case of the cruiser "Cumberland" the House is asked to grant £250,000 for repairs.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That cannot be discussed on this Vote.

5.58 p.m.

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Wallace): I hope that hon. Members will realise, when they see me on my feet instead of the First Lord, that it is no discourtesy to the House in general. It has always been the custom for the Works and Buildings Vote of the Admiralty to be the particular care
and responsibility of the Civil Lord. I need hardly say that we do not in the very least resent the raising of any of these points. We are very glad indeed to give the House all possible information on this Vote. Hon. Members who have been in the House for some years may be aware that it was the old custom to devote one of the 20 Supply days almost entirely to the consideration of Vote 10.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) has asked a question which, as he said, might be described as a hardy annual. I am very glad he has done so, because it gives me an opportunity of correcting two errors which I inadvertently made in replying to the general Debate on the Navy Estimates last week. I stated then that we had received a contribution from Australia towards the cost of the Singapore base. That is not the case. The contributors are New Zealand, Hong Kong and the Federated Malay States. I also said that the site for the base had been given by the Federated Malay States, when I should have said the Straits Settlements. I hope that the House will forgive me for those mistakes, and will take into account the fact that it was late at night when I made these statements in a rather hurried endeavour not to trespass upon its patience. The Singapore base, we can say quite fairly, is progressing steadily. We are putting down in the Navy Estimates this year a smaller sum than was voted last year, largely because we did not actually spend the whole of the money which was voted last year, as the House will eventually see when they get the complete returns.
As those connected with large contracts for works will understand, it is extremely difficult to forecast a year in advance—and in many of these cases it has to be done 15 or 16 months in advance—how the work is going to progress and how much the contractor is likely to earn. I think, however, it is fairly accurate to say that the amount taken up for Singapore next year, the amount which we expect to spend, will closely approximate to the sum which will actually have been spent by 31st March this year. Messrs. Jackson's contract is due to be completed on 28th September, and there is no reason to suppose that they will be behind time. The graving dock should
be ready to function in September, 1937, and, as my right hon. Friend has already informed the House, the whole base ought to be ready by 1939 at the present rate of progress.
We have let a number of contracts which will result, directly and indirectly, in very considerable orders for materials in this country. We have placed the contracts for the steel work required for the workshops, storehouses, jetty, railways, fencing material, water tanks, etc., and further contracts still remain to be let from time to time. We have also let the contract for the caisson for the big dock. We are, of course, as Messrs. Jackson's contract comes to an end, substituting more and more departmental work which is being let out to smaller contractors. The sum which is down in the Estimates for 1935 to be paid to Messrs. Jackson includes £90,000 out of the £100,000 which they were obliged, under the terms of the contract, to deposit with us against contingencies. We propose to retain the odd £10,000 until we have settled the hundred and one final details which as my hon. Friend must know enter into a contract of this kind. I will not say more about Singapore. I think I can sum it up in the one sentence, that everything is proceeding according to plan.
I turn now to the other question raised by my hon. Friend, namely, the Milford Haven Mine Depot. Those who study the Estimates with that minute care which the late Civil Lord always displays may have observed that in last year's Estimates the total sum to be spent upon this depot was £246,000, and the total sum appearing in the present Estimates is £376,000. It is only due to the House that I should give a brief explanation of the change. Shortly, the scheme is being revised to meet modern safety requirements. It is only those few words which have been inserted as an explanation in the printed Estimates. Originally, the scheme provided for the storage above ground of bulk explosives and of those mines which were kept ready for issue. We have come to the conclusion that that is not the best way, and the new proposals make adequate provision for the storage, filling, maintenance and handling of the filled mines under safe conditions. The scheme is conceived with particular
reference to the danger of attack from the air. We shall now have underground storage both for bulk T.N.T. and for those mines which are completed and ready for issue. The modern mine is larger than its predecessor, and it is advisable to store the charges separately from the mine cases themselves.
The revision of the scheme has not unnaturally involved a certain delay in getting drawings ready and preparing contract particulars, but I hope that the first contract which will be for the earthworks and the underground chambers will be let in July. I cannot say that it is going to provide an enormous amount of work or to solve the problem of unemployment in Pembroke. I think this first contract will probably employ about 60 men to start with, rising perhaps to 150 and going on until 1936. The second contract for the repairs to the pier will employ 50 men for a year, and the third contract for buildings, which will start about the end of next year, will employ a number which I do not attempt to forecast. They will be mostly building trade operatives. We have spent to date on this scheme £21,000 in the present year's Estimates mostly on the access road, repairs to swing-bridge and preparatory work generally. We are taking in these Estimates £45,000 which will, of course, mean that more men will be employed in the financial year which is shortly beginning than were employed in that which is just ending. I want also to tell the House that the sum expended last year did not include the price of the land. The land purchase is shown separately under Sub-head G and was paid for in 1933 and 1934. It came to something over £90,000 and it may be satisfactory to everybody to know that it has cost less than at one time I thought probable.
I hope that explanation in regard to the Milford Haven Mine Depot will satisfy the House, and it only remains for me to say a few words on the last subject raised by my hon. Friend, namely, Sub-head O, which deals with the dying annuities of the old Naval Works Loans. We have dropped this year from £468,000 to £248,000; next year we shall drop to £128,000 and the year after that to £78,000. In 1938, there will only be £12,000 and in 1939 the whole of this long commitment will be finally extinguished.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare asked me to be careful about committing the Board of Admiralty to a renewal of the policy which was thought right 40 years ago. I am in the fortunate position of being able to tell him that the Board of Admiralty are not contemplating anything of the kind. I do not imagine that it is really our business. Our business is to get the money for essential naval requirements and if there were any questions raised as to works loans, I feel they would have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am grateful to the House for having let me down so easily on this long and complicated Vote, and since no reduction has been moved, I hope the House will allow us to have it without further discussion.

REPORT [18TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported.

ABMY ESTIMATES, 1935.

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 152,200, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,779,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, &c, of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,730,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936'."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £977,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the-Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,558,000, be granted to His Majesty, to-defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,510,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital,
Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, "Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £215,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Superannuation, Compensation and Additional Allowances, Gratuities, Injury Grants, &c, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

6.14 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, to leave out "152,200," and to insert instead thereof "149,200."
I do so in order to get some more definite explanation of this Vote than we have had up to the present. On making a closer examination of the items which go to make up the numbers in this Vote I find even greater reason for the criticism which we offer than was apparent when we had the Estimates before us on Monday last. It will be noted that the reduction which I move of 3,000, corresponds almost exactly with the increase which is proposed this year in the total of the various forces and I have been looking into the matter to see how the additional 3,000 are apportioned. I find that there is practically no increase in the infantry. To be exact there is an actual increase of four in the total of infantry including Foot Guards and that branch accounts for something like 78,000 out of the total of 152,000 which is asked for. In the case of the cavalry the numbers are exactly the same as they were last year. We have always said whether we were sitting on this side of the House or on the other side, that whatever differences might exist as to numbers and amounts in these Votes we agreed that the Army should be efficient. The question is what is the standard of efficiency?
One of the main arguments for this increase is that of increased mechanisation. That was the term used repeatedly in Monday's Debate. One would have thought that a second look would have been taken at the numbers of the cavalry, if it were true that the need at present is for increased mechanisation in the Army. I have a good deal of sympathy with those who by sentiment are associated with the Cavalry and horse
regiments generally. I have some reason for appreciating that sentiment. When one has been driven round the school by a merciless rough-rider, it is a natural thing to cling to the horse. I have some very tender memories of that experience. I think that the time has really arrived when, if we are to have an efficient Army, and mechanisation is to be the key-word to it, the War Office ought to explain why they retain the numbers of Cavalry at the same point as they did last year, particularly in a year when there was an urge made for increased efficiency. I know, of course, that this is a matter of general policy, and that it will be possible for hon. and gallant Gentlemen to make a good case to their own satisfaction for the use of cavalry in any future war.
As one analyses the Estimates and hears the debates on the other Services, one feels that it is more than ever necessary that the numbers should be debated in relation to the numbers for the other two Services. It is clear that in future the Air Force has simply to increase the efficiency of the various types of machine, and that applies to the Navy as well. As far as the Army is concerned, however, one knows that while shells overwhelmed rifles in the last War, and tanks would seem to be the really effective force in case it should be unfortunately necessary to use such force in future, yet I venture to say that those who are connected with the Army and give it their expert consideration would find it difficult to declare definitely that the tank and other kinds of mechanised forces will be the really effective factor in the next war. I find that in the Tank Corps, where one would have expected an increase of numbers, there is actually a reduction of 27. There is, at the same time, an increase of 15 in the War Office staff. The Financial Secretary should explain why there is this continual increase. The reason always given is that as the Army increases in mechanical efficiency, it is more than ever necessary to have the experts in the various branches at the War Office for purposes of guidance and administration, but I think we should have some further answer upon that point. There is an increase of about 500 in the Army Service Corps and about 1,000 in the Royal Engineers. Whatever may be said about the other two Services, I do not think any of the Services are so
problematical as to what we are to get for our money in effective fighting power as the Army.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: In rising to support the reduction moved by my hon. Friend, I would like to say that I think the debates on the Service Estimates would be better if we did not have to take the notices of Motion on the Estimates on going into Committee. They break up the trend of the debates, for no one knows when they will come on. I hope that the Government will see that in future a whole day is devoted in Committee to the various Services, and have a separate day for the notices of Motion. I am supporting the reduction, not because I want in any way to detract from the efficiency of the Army, but because I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Estimates when he said that an effective army should be up-to-date. We all agree with that, but in dealing with the Army we must have regard to the times through which we are passing. The various forms of the fighting forces assume different shapes as time passes. For instance, the Air Force has sprung up in recent years. Fifty years ago no one thought that it would be the effective part of our fighting services, as it is now. Yet to-day we keep an obsolete part of the Army in being. I refer to the Cavalry, which question I raise every year. We never seem to make any attempt to reduce it. We talk about efficiency, and we are told that attempts are made to examine that side of the Army to see what can be done with it, and yet the figures remain the' same. In 1933 the figure was 8,114; in 1934 it was slightly reduced to 8,102, and this year it remains the same.
I cannot see the need for this number of Cavalry. If we are to have an efficient force, the redundant parts of it should be done away with. The Cavalry is an extremely costly item. The only purpose that it serves is as a kind of show thing in the streets of London, and as a kind of advertisement for recruiting. I shall persist in my advocacy of the plea that it should be done away with until the War Office does something about it. I do not want the War Office to think that because we do not continually press this question forward, that we have
forgotten it. We have not, and we hope that some regard will be paid to our claims. In another part of the Estimates there is a figure of £20,000 for the training of horses, but no one will tell me that there is any need for that. We on this side of the House have no desire to reduce the efficiency of the Army. As long as we must have a defence force, we hold that it should be highly efficient and skilled. I believe that the mechanised side of the Army is the most effective. In the Debate the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was accused by hon. Members on the other side of belittling mechanisation. He did nothing of the kind, for he urged that the mechanised part of the Army should be made more effective. While we stand for that, we urge the House to pay attention to other parts of the Estimates where savings can be made. This Vote of £43,000,000 comes from the taxpayers, and we ought to have regard to them. When we are standing for an efficient Army we ought at the same time to have consideration for those who find the money, whom it is our duty to protect. I do not support this reduction because I have any desire to belittle the efficiency of the Army, but to draw attention to the fact that the Estimates can be saved by reducing the 8,000 men who make up the Cavalry and by improving the mechanised part of the Army.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I want to raise the question of the training of the Tank Corps which comes under this Vote. The War Office endeavoured to obtain control two years ago of a number of commons in Surrey for the training of the Tank Corps. Various negotiations took place, the result of which was that the War Office was to use these training grounds for certain periods of the year under certain restrictions. I have never been one of those who believe that the training of the Army should in any way be restricted and that various amenities may not have to go by the board in certain circumstances. There are suggestions, however, that the troops are infringing the agreements that were come to with regard to the administration of these commons, and that the tanks are tearing up the ground—

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that that question comes under this Vote, which relates to the number of men.

Mr. RHYS: I thought that it came under the training of the Tank Corps, which is under Vote 1.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are now discussing Vote A.

6.30 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I should like to say one or two words in answer to my hon. Friends opposite who have so often raised the question of cavalry across the floor of the House. No doubt the references of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench opposite about "clinging to the horse" were prompted by memories of the riding school, in which I can also share. I can perhaps speak more freely on the question of the mechanisation of the cavalry because my old cavalry regiment and another cavalry regiment have for some years now been armoured car regiments, though still on the cavalry strength. I would mention that the expense of a mechanised cavalry regiment is considerably greater than that of a cavalry regiment which retains its horses. I have not heard the Minister say so, but I am told that it is the intention of the authorities to continue the mechanisation of the cavalry—that they have plans for mechanisation on rather different lines which they will be trying out during the year, and have to a certain extent already tried, which will inevitably mean the mechanisation of another brigade of cavalry out of the present establishment.
I should like to know whether we can be told anything of the intentions of the War Office in that matter. In a European war or for home defence cavalry in the old sense are not so useful as they have been in the past, but when we come to consider the defence of the Empire we have quite a different proposition. We must remember India, Egypt, South Africa and many other parts of the Empire to which we might have to send an expeditionary force, and there is no question that in places where it is difficult to get petrol, a horse and man can move and "live on the country" under conditions when that might not be possible in the case of machines—unless we have better plans for furnishing supplies of petrol, perhaps by aeroplane, and spare parts in case of breakdowns.
In Palestine, during the late War, we saw what the cavalry could do in finishing off the Turkish Army, a task which no other troops could have undertaken under the conditions then prevailing. Therefore, cavalry are still very necessary for an expeditionary force, and cavalry regiments have to be kept at home from which to replenish the strength of those which would be serving abroad with such a force. To my mind we are keeping here only the minimum number of cavalry which would enable us to meet the needs of regiments which had gone overseas. I do not criticise the Vote because I agree that as modern inventions are introduced we must keep abreast of them. I am sorry that we cannot go on clinging to the horse, but I hope we shall cling to him as long as we can. I would also point out that generals and staff officers are necessary to an army, and that to enable them to get about and to manoeuvre their troops they must, in many cases, be well mounted—they cannot all go in tanks—and the more people there are in the Army who can ride and so mount a horse in case of necessity the better it is. We are quite justified in keeping a nucleus of cavalry, which is the finest arm in the service for training commanding officers.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I have a question to ask about the organisation of the Tank Corps, seeing that we are now getting into a reminiscent mood. It seems to be constantly subject to reorganisation. It was being reorganised in 1932, again in 1933 and yet again in 1934, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us anything about that reorganisation and whether we are getting down to anything definite about the organisation of the Tank Corps at home and abroad.

6.35 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): The main attack, if one can call it an attack, which has been advanced in this discussion upon Vote A has concerned the use of cavalry. I was very glad to hear almost every hon. Member who has addressed us saying quite definitely that the Army ought to be made efficient, because that was the point I tried to make when I introduced the Army Estimates on Monday. "But," it was said,
"If you are going to have an efficient Army is it necessary as a condition of that efficiency to retain the cavalry?" The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) said the cavalry were used for ceremonial purposes and also, perhaps, with the object of stimulating recruiting. Surely those are not the only purposes of the cavalry. That is not all they were used for during the late War. The cavalry took a very big part in that war; and, as has already been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) there are certain countries—he mentioned Egypt and India—in which we have to have forces in which we cannot use tanks and are compelled to use cavalry.
I think we are compelled to retain cavalry if we are to have a complete and efficient expeditionary force. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said that tanks ought to be taking the place of cavalry, that we were moving towards an age of mechanisation. That is quite true. It is true, also, to say that the cavalry is being mechanised. We have mechanised two cavalry regiments by equipping them with armoured cars, and we are experimenting this year with the mechanisation of a third regiment, and if the experiment is successful it may lead to further developments. The House ought not to run away with the idea that the personnel of all the cavalry under Vote A are on horseback, though I repeat that it is necessary to retain the horses and to retain cavalry as we have known it as cavalry.

Mr. TINKER: When a cavalry regiment is mechanised is it still called a cavalry regiment? That is a point which ought to be made clear to the House. I have not had this knowledge before.

Mr. HACKING: Yes, a cavalry regiment is a cavalry regiment even when it is converted. If there is a complete reorganisation it may be that a fresh description will be applied to the converted regiments, but at the moment we are really experimenting more than anything else. The other items raised by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street are dealt with in the pink sheet which accompanies the Estimates. He asked about the Royal Corps of Signals and the Royal Artillery, and also about the increases in the Royal Army Service Corps, the Royal Army
Medical Corps and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps. The increases there are due, in the main, to increased establishments at home and in Egypt. As I said in my opening speech on Monday, we are compelled to increase these particular services if we are to have mechanised units. I said that we should probably have smaller units to begin with, and that with smaller units it was necessary to have a larger auxiliary personnel.
The hon. Member for Leigh made a reference to the school of equitation, although he said he had no right to mention it, and therefore it may be said that I have no right to reply. He further said that he stood for mechanisation, but argued that we ought to cut down in other directions. I agree that wherever it is possible to cut down we must do so, but, as I said on Monday, we have found it is quite impossible to cut down in the other non-mechanised services, as yet, but we are always watching the position with great care and when it is possible to cut down in any service it will be done. As to the Tank Corps, at the moment the position there is one of flux. We are experimenting with different-sized tanks and in every way are trying to create efficiency with as little expenditure as possible. I hope I shall not be asked to go into details with regard to the establishments. The establishments are being very carefully considered, and I can promise that there, again, there will be no waste of any kind. Wherever it is possible to economise, whether in the cavalry or any other branch, I can promise that it will be done.

Mr. ATTLEE: Do I understand the position with regard to the Tank Corps to be that the War Office have been experimenting with various forms of organisation and that the organisation is not yet fixed?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, that is so. It is not definitely fixed. It is difficult to say when anything will be definitely fixed, because, as the world advances and inventions appear, we have to try to keep abreast of them.

Mr. LAWSON: One point with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt is the question of the War Office staff. I drew attention to the fact that there was an increase of 15 in the staff of the War Office, and that there was a reduction of 27 in the Tank Corps. That seems
to be a strange contradiction. There is an increase of about 1,500, about a thousand of them being Royal Engineers and 56S in the Royal Army Service Corps, but the increase in the case of the War Office staff is very difficult to understand.

Mr. HACKING: It is not the process of mechanisation which as in the main affected the War Office establishment. The increase is due chiefly to the greater amount of legislation, as well as an increased number of executive decisions from the Government, especially in the domain of social affairs. Some years ago we had not to deal with social affairs to the extent that we have to-day, and we need a staff which is large enough and efficient enough to carry out the work. A new department has been started in recent years, the Air Ministry, and that means a great deal more correspondence. Communications take place between three Service departments instead of two as previously. The Pensions (Increase) Acts have meant additional staff to deal with war pensions. The

Representation of the People Act affects us and so do the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. All those mean additional staff to the War Office. Acts which are of a social character have to be dealt with by somebody. Whenever we place an Act upon the Statute Book affecting any department, that almost invariably means an increase in staff to deal with the problem with which the particular department is concerned. I do not think that we can get away from that fact. In the main, our technical establishments at the War Office have not been increased; if there has been an increase due to mechanisation it has not been big. The main increase is due to the social services. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with that explanation and will not press his Amendment.

Question put, "That '152,200' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 39.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[6.48 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen, Sir Aylmer


Albery, Irving James
Cross, R. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Iveagh, Countess of


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Jennings, Roland


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Denville, Alfred
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Apsley, Lord
Doran, Edward
Ker, J. Campbell


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Assheton, Ralph
Eastwood, John Francis
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Sir Alfred


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bait, Sir Alfred L.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Blindell, James
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Borodale, Viscount
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Llewellin, Major John J.


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Goff, Sir Park
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Goldie, Noel B,
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Burnett, John George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Graves, Marjorle
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Carver, Major William H.
Greene, William P. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grenfell, E. C, (City of London)
Martin, Thomas B.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grimston, R. V,
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milne, Charles


Colfox, Major William Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Conant, R. J. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Cooke, Douglas
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hornby, Frank
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Copeland, Ida
Horsbrugh, Florence
Munro, Patrick


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
O'Connor, Terence James


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Sandys, Edwin Duncan
Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Peaks, Osbert
Selley, Harry R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Helen B, (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Peat, Charles U.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Turton, Robert Hugh


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Soper, Richard
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Hull)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Potter, John
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pybus, Sir John
Spens, William Patrick
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stones, James
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Storey, Samuel
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Remer, John R.
Strauss, Edward A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Rickards, George William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Summersby, Charles H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Sutcliffe, Harold
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tate, Mavis Constance



Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Taylor. Vice-Admiral E. A.(P'dd'gtn, S.)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cleary, J. J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Thorne, William James


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
John, William
West, F. R.


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lawson, John James
Wilmot, John


Dobbie, William
Logan, David Gilbert



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Groves.


Third Resolution read a Second time.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out "£3,730,000," and to insert instead thereof "£3,729,900."
I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office questions with regard to the large amount of new construction overseas. I see mentioned on page 203 of the Estimates a sum of £16,000 for accommodation for increased garrison in China. I would like information as to that increase. There is also mention of £100, which is said to be for barracks for three British infantry battalions in Hong Kong. I would like particulars about that. Then there is the large sum of £775,800 for the Singapore defences. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what that covers. On page 204 there is a sum of £155,400 as estimate for adapting defences to modern requirements for various stations abroad. That is a very large sum to be given without any particular explanation, and I should like to know
the location of those defences. A lot of money has been thrown away in the past in putting up all kinds of defences in all kinds of odd spots. We ought to have more particulars in regard to it.
I should like also to know about the large expenditure on the Army in Egypt. Item 87 on page 203 refers to £11,000 for accommodation for various units. I always understood that we were clearing out of Egypt sooner or later, and I am rather disturbed to find such a heavy expenditure being contemplated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me more about what is proposed for expenditure in the Far East, because it is important expenditure and seems to indicate a new policy. Other items in this section concern to a large extent replacement of barracks, but there is a good deal of construction for tank corps. There is, in fact, quite a lot of important construction of one sort or another. The overseas commitments are very heavy this year, and I should like to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentle man.

7.0 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I would like to put one question to my right hon. Friend. I believe it is common knowledge that for some time there have been a great many barracks in this country that have been practically unfit for habitation according to modern standards. I believe that my right hon. Friend has given particular attention to this part of his duties. May I ask him whether, in view of the fact that the present financial circumstances do not allow this really big problem to be tackled, he will look into it and see whether some fresh system can be devised of dealing with what are recognised as conditions which would not be tolerated for the civil population. It is a very difficult position for the soldiers. The military engineers responsible may easily report that barracks are unfavourable, but it is very difficult for the authorities to uphold the report, because they are told that there is not enough money to go round. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider financing some scheme for the reconstruction of any barracks which are not really fit for human habitation? When we see Bills, both English and Scottish, before this House laying down standards of housing and decent conditions for the civil population, those of us who have been soldiers, and who have the interests of the soldiers at heart, cannot allow an opportunity such as this to go by without asking that as decent conditions shall be provided for the troops as for the civil population.

7.2 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend if he could give a few more particulars about the question of the new accommodation for tanks? There is to be new accommodation for tank battalions at Warminster. There is' to be at Catterick a great deal of development connected with the Royal Tank Corps. I beg my right hon. Friend to consult with his advisers and consider whether they could not slow this down a little. All these items are most expensive, and the tank corps is the most expensive unit we have in the Army. Most thoughtful soldiers are beginning to realise that the tank is of very doubtful use. From experience the Japanese have found and the French in Syria have
found that tanks are of no use, and now we are finding on manoeuvres that although tanks can manoeuvre with the greatest ease in their own home, Salisbury Plain, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) or Amanullah go there the tanks put up a most impressive display, as soon as they get out of their usual ground, whether it be hilly country, rivers, forests or really boggy ground, they can hardly move at all. It has now become quite apparent that the only use of tanks are on their own battle ground, careful preparation having been made, surprise established, and a smoke-screen launched. But to get them all over the country, as has been suggested in some military magazines, is impossible. I beg the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the heavy expense of these weapons, to keep them to one strictly experimental brigade, and to disband the other tank battalions altogether. At any rate, we should not go further ahead with extensive new permanent buildings, garages and all the enormous demands which the extension of the tank unit entails.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: It is quite clear, not only from what he has said to-day but what he said on Monday, that the Noble Lord does not like tanks. He has said that Japan has discarded them as being of no use. On the other hand, he must realise that other countries, including Russia, have very large numbers of them. If he does not like tanks, clearly he does not like the houses in which tanks have to live.

Lord APSLEY: The new ones.

Mr. HACKING: They must be new on occasion. We have not sufficient old accommodation to house them. His views with regard to tanks are not shared by those who are responsible for the forces in this country. I am not an expert on these matters, and can only be guided by those people who do know something about their job; and I am advised by the military experts that tanks are an essential part of the British Army. If they are, they must be accommodated, and we must have the workshops where repairs can be carried out. I hope that my Noble Friend, however much he may dislike tanks, will appreciate that his views are not shared in every quarter,
and that, if these tanks have to be used and have to be part of our equipment, accommodation must be provided for them. We always do our best to provide them with accommodation that is in existence; where that is not possible, we are compelled to spend money on fresh accommodation.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) has made an appeal for a speeding-up of the building of barracks. He knows that I have every sympathy with him. I said last Monday that I carried out a personal investigation in this matter. I visited some of the accommodation at present used by the troops, and I say categorically that some of the accommodation is not fit for them to live in. "We are doing our very best in these Estimates under existing financial conditions to make some progress, but that progress is not fast enough for my ambition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested some fresh system of raising money. I do not quite know what he has in mind. Is his idea some sort of loan? How are we going to borrow the money?

Captain RAMSAY: Either by loan or some subsidy such as that for civilian houses.

Mr. HACKING: It would be necessary to expand our Estimates very much more, and we are kept in check by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Our Estimates must be based very largely on the amount of money that we can obtain. We cannot spend money that we have not got, hut we have this year been allotted a larger amount of money. The question of fresh money in order to speed up the new construction is constantly receiving our consideration. I hope that it may be possible by some means to get a larger sum of money.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) asked me a number of questions. I wish that he had given me notice of some of them, because it is very difficult on the spur of the moment to reply as fully as he would like. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) did give me notice that he was going to raise the question of the very large expenditure, £2,219,900, in future years on the housing of three British
infantry battalions at Hong Kong. On Monday he asked some questions about this matter, and I did not give him the reply which he thought ought to have been forthcoming. I am one of those people who are not good at giving replies unless they know the answers, and as I did not know the answer on that occasion, I refrained from giving the reply.
Since that time I have made further inquiries, and I find the position to be roughly as follows: In the 1934 Estimates there was service included to accommodate three battalions at a total cost of £1,700,000. But I am informed that the site which was then contemplated ceased to be available, and so the whole of that project was put into the melting-pot. We could do nothing more. The explanation which was given in the 1934 Estimates for a token sum of £500 apparently sufficed last year, and it was copied verbatim in the Estimates this year in the hope that as it had been sufficient on the last-occasion it might satisfy the House this time. But, apparently, it has not given satisfaction on this occasion. I agree with the hon. Members for Limehouse and Chester-le-Street that there ought to have been a fuller explanation in connection with this large sum of money, although we are only asking to-day for the token vote of £100. I accept the responsibility and apologise to the House that there was not a fuller explanation. That being the case, let me give the fuller explanation now. The Government long ago provided that the infantry garrison for China should be six battalions, of which five ultimately should be at Hong Kong. The permanent accommodation at Hong Kong housed only two battalions. Of the remaining three at present two of them are accommodated in Hong Kong, in temporary huts, and the third is at Shanghai. The only reason that it is at Shanghai is that there is no accommodation of any kind in which to put this particular battalion at Hong Kong. The Estimate, approximately £2,200,000, is a very rough estimate, arrived at by assessing the cost of the preparation for the new site at £500,000, and using the previous estimate for the previous buildings as being applicable to this new scheme. We had to make allowance for the change in the exchange rate from 1s. 4d. to 1s. 8d., and actually at the present time it is, I think, about 1s. 11½d., so that some further adjustment will be needed
there; but admittedly the cost is high. It may be that, in spite of the increase to which I have just referred, we shall, when we get more details, find that the estimate is too high, and that we shall be able to effect economies.
I would ask the House to realise, however, that the cost of providing accommodation in the Far East is a good deal higher than it is in the United Kingdom. In the first place, I am assured that building costs are much greater, and obviously more elaborate accommodation is required for troops serving in a hot climate. For example, as regards air space, whereas in this country 600 cubic feet of air space is allowed per man, in the tropics it is necessary to allow 1,040 cubic feet. That means that the buildings must be of larger size to accommodate the same number of men than would be the case in the United Kingdom. Further, it is necessary to have verandas, fans, and other things which are necessary for ventilation, in order to keep the air as cool as possible, in the interests of the health of the men. The high cost of barracks is also accounted for by the fact that they are not ordinary barracks in the sense of the word as we use it here. At a foreign station it is necessary to have your own supply depot, your own medical reception station, accommodation for stores, recreation grounds, and also your own sewerage, water and electricity systems, and your own roads, the construction of which costs no small amount of money in a country like China. I promise, however, that there shall be a very close scrutiny of the estimates when they are received. We have put down a sum of money which may be found to be too high when that close scrutiny takes place, and the scruitiny will be full and exacting

before any progress takes place in the building of this accommodation.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is that the site costs £500,000?

Mr. HACKING: As I have indicated, a rather large site is necessary, and I am told that that is the approximate cost. I can assure the hon. Member that, if it had been possible to obtain a site at less cost, it would have been obtained. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of Item 105 (Adapting Defences to modern requirements). That deals with the modernisation of coast defences, and, as the details are obviously confidential, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pres3 for information regarding them.

Mr. ATTLEE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give approximate information?

Mr. HACKING: I would rather not give any information under that head. With regard to Item 87 (Accommodation for various units at Abbassia), that is, in the main, accommodation for mechanisation. Item 96 (Singapore Defences) merely represents a continuation of the policy which has been approved by the Government for some considerable time; there is nothing new about it. The hon. Gentleman thought that we were talking about clearing out of Egypt, but I have no knowledge of any policy of that kind. It does not, indeed, concern me, and, if the hon. Gentleman wishes for information of that kind, he must address his question to some other Minister than the representative of the War Office.

Question put, "That '£3,730,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 34.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[7.20 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Albery, Irving James
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, w.)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Dickle, John P.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C (Berks., Newb'y)
Doran, Edward


Apsley, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dunglass, Lord


Aske, Sir Robert William
Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Eastwood, John Francis


Assheton, Ralph
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Carver, Major William H.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Colfox, Major William Philip
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Conant, R. J. E.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cooke, Douglas
Fox, Sir Gifford


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cooper, A. Duff
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Bernays, Robert
Crooke, J. Smedley
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Blindell, James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Borodale, Viscount
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Boulton, W. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glossop, C. W. H.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Goff, Sir Park
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Goldie, Noel B.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Selley, Harry R.


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. O. R.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Martin, Thomas B.
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Somervell, Sir Donald


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Milne, Charles
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tfd & Chisw'k)
Spens, William Patrick


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mitcheson, G. G,
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stones, James


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H, (Denbigh)
Storey, Samuel


Hornby, Frank
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univor'ties)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.
Strauss, Edward A.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Nation, Brigadler-General J. J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
O'Connor, Terence James
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Iveagh, Countess of
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Summersby, Charles H.


Jennings, Roland
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hn. William G. A.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Orr Swing, I, L,
Tate, Mavis Constance


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Peake, Osbert
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ker, J. Campbell
Pearson, William G.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Blist'n)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Potter, John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Law, Sir Alfred
Pybus, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor A G.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ramsay. Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgsour-


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Rickards, George William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Loftus, Pierce C.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Particle)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward



MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel




Sir A. Lambert Ward.


NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cleary, J. J.
Hicks, Ernest George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Groves.


First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.29 p.m.

Mr. RHYS: I do not propose to take more than a minute or two in putting the point to which I desire to call attention. Two or three years ago, a question was raised with the War Office in connection with the use for training purposes of certain commons in West Surrey. At that time the War Office had decided to take over all these commons for purposes of military training, but accommodation was reached with the local interests, as a result of which it was agreed that the commons should only be used for this
purpose at certain times of the year and under limited conditions. It is obvious that a Tank Corps must have proper training, and, in contradistinction to my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) who says that tanks are inefficient, we find them to be devastatingly efficient. I believe the plan was that the training should take place in the centre of the area originally agreed upon. It is perhaps natural that in the excitement of a tank attack the drivers wish to get to their objective as quickly as possible and to try out the capabilities of their tanks, and they perhaps destroy rather more of the natural amenities and beauties than is strictly necessary. I raise the matter in no hostile spirit at all, but with a full recognition that the
Tank Corps should have field training. These commons are used by a very large number of people on Sundays and holidays and are very valuable open spaces near London, and if my right hon. Friend will look into the various complaints that have been made in connection with this matter we shall be very grateful.

7.31 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I should like to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) that it is not a question of whether I think tanks are efficient, nor do I think for a minute that they are inefficient. It is not a question of whether I like or dislike tanks any more than one likes or dislikes machine guns, but there are a great many soldiers now coming to the belief that the Tank Corps are not capable of performing the functions that many people, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), believe that they can perform. On the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, it is most important that there should be found a stretch of country where the Tank Corps could be exercised under natural conditions, including rivers to be bridged and gulleys, up and down, besides Salisbury Plain, which they know by heart and in fact every blade of grass on it. But as soon as they extend the manoeuvres away from that part of the country, the tanks have to go down roads following each other's tails until they get back again to the Plain. If somewhere could be found—I believe Devonshire was mentioned or the hills of Wales—where they would not do so much damage to civilian property; and where it could be seen what they could actually do and how many miles a day the Tank Corps could make across country, it would be a real test. We should then be able to know something about the extensiveness of their work.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. HACKING: I am glad that it is agreed that some place must be found for the training of tanks, but the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Rhys) is simply that tanks, during their training, travel out of the area provided for them. He realises that the movement of tanks is much more rapid than it was a few years ago, and it may be that when they are just getting up to the boundary they are going so
fast as not to be able to be pulled up in time. Seriously, I will look into the complaint, and, if it be found that the area is not large enough, we shall have to extend it. If it be found, on the other hand, that the area is large enough and that tanks are abusing the opportunities presented to them for training, then they will have to fulfil the conditions laid down, and have to train within the area, and not extend beyond the boundary. I will look into the matter and let my hon. Friend know when I have made inquiry.

REPORT [19TH MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

AIR ESTIMATES, 1935.

1. "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 33,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,547,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of the Royal Air Force at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,145,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,002,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £595,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civil Aviation, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936."

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934.

6." That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £200,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

7.35 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I beg to move to leave out "33,000" and to insert instead thereof "30,000."
In moving a reduction in the number of men by 3,000, I wish to indicate to the House that it is not our desire to prolong discussion on this Vote. We feel bound, however, to move the reduction, because the Vote is based upon the question of policy, and we have expressed our views on the question of policy in previous debates. On this occasion, I simply want to say that we make no complaint against the allocation of these numbers, or against the officers and men involved, and we do not complain of the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Air has brought the Estimates before us. The Estimates provide for and fix the number of officers, cadets and men at 33,000, which is 2,000 in excess of the total for last year. We believe that this is not an excessive number to perform the duties expected of them, but it meets the convenience of the House to have a division in this form on the question of policy, and, because I desire to give time to debate a question of more general interest on Vote 8, I will not say more.

7.36 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not for moving a reduction in the Vote, but for the manner in which he has moved it. I know that the whole House will be grateful, because these broad matters of policy cannot be debated in a few words, and therefore I thank the hon. Gentleman

very much for moving the reduction formally so as to allow us to proceed with other Votes.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. WHITESIDE: There is one point upon which we should have some information. Parliament has been asked to sanction a grant of £20,650,000 to the Royal Air Force. I was astonished, and indeed dismayed to learn, in reply to a question put to the Under-Secretary last Monday, that, although we spent £17,500,000 last year on the Air Force, there are only 2,701 pilots in it. I appreciate to the full the value of ground organisation in air defence, but I maintain that the job of the Royal Air Force is to fly. I have often been approached by keen-eyed young men in my division who say they wish to fly, and, as they cannot afford to fly in a civilian capacity, they want to join the Air Force. I have had to tell them that if they join the Royal Air Force they will probably not fly during the whole course of their lives. It is estimated that there are 120 men on the ground for every man in the air. I ask the Under-Secretary to give us some indication that during this year, with an increase of £3,000,000 in the Estimate, there should be more pilots turned out. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that anybody who joins the Air Force who indicates that he wishes to fly should, if physically fit, be enabled to do so.

Question put, "That '33,000' stand part of the Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 130; Noes, 34.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[7.40 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hopkinson, Austin


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hornby, Frank


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dickle, John P.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Baldwin, Ht. Hon. Stanley
Doran, Edward
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Dunglass, Lord
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Bernays, Robert
Everard, W. Lindsay
Ker, J. Campbell


Blindell, James
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Borodale, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Boulton, W. w.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W,
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Broadbent, Colonel John
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Llewellin, Major John J.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Carver, Major William H.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Grimston, R. V.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Colfox, Major William Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Conant, R. J. E.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Cooper, A. Duff
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Martin, Thomas B.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rickards, George William
Summersby, Charles H.


Mills. Major j. D. (New Forest)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Milne, Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis Constance


Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mitcheson, G. G.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Selley, Harry R.
Train, John


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Somervell, Sir Donald
Watt, Major George Steven H.


Peake, Osbert
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Pearson, William G.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spens, William Patrick
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Potter, John
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Pybus, Sir John
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Stones, James



Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Strauss, Edward A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-Colonel


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Sir A. Lambert Ward.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart



NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cleary, J. J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
John, William
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, Stephen Owen
Lunn, William
Williams. Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Dobbie, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Mainwaring, William Henry



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. Groves.


Resolutions agreed to.

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and Air Force; and that Mr. Douglas Hacking, Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell, and Sir Phillip Sassoon do prepare and bring it in.

AKMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

"to provide, during twelve months, for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed Bill 48.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.48 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: Suppose the War Office found it desirable to have on their establishment a number of autogyros for military work or light aircraft for transporting staff officers, would they have to come on the charge of the Air Ministry or on the charge of the War Office? It is rather an important question, and I should be glad if my right
hon. Friend could give the House the views of the Air Ministry upon it. Are they prepared to provide them from the Air Ministry's establishment and pay, or would they come on the War Office establishment and pay? Still further, suppose, as is possible, it is found that the military would have to rely more and more on air transport for food, water, stores and so on, would that be done by the Air Ministry by transport machines possibly commandeered from civilian companies, or would the War Office do it themselves?

7.50 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend has raised an interesting point, which he raised on the main Estimates debate, but it is a point which involves a question of policy. I said on the last occasion that I would look into it and have it examined, and it is impossible for me to give him an answer before I have received full information on the subject.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.51 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: On page 35 of the Air Estimates it says that the number of scientific officers was 36 in 1934 and 25 in 1935. I should have thought we ought to have increased the numbers of scientific officers, because research work is of such great importance now, with the rapid air development that is going on. I notice that junior scientific officers are paid emoluments of £246 to £319. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State can tell me whether we are likely to get the best brains of the universities to assist the research work at Farnborough on such a small sum as £246. I think these emoluments ought to be raised. There is an hon. Member opposite from the Universities, who, I think, will agree that we shall not get the best men from the universities or any other institutions for such a small sum as that. I should very much like that matter to be looked into by the Under-Secretary of State. On page 48 of the Estimates it says:
The Air Council have power to sanction rewards to inventors and royalties up to £1,000 in each case.
Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether any of these scientists have earned any of these rewards for their inventions? That is a most important point. In America any scientist who produces an invention that is taken up for aircraft work gets a very large money reward, and I should like to know if our scientists at Farnborough have earned any of these rewards. On page 51, under the heading "Airship Development," it says:
Provision is made under this subhead for the cost of maintaining a nucleus airship organisation.
I should like to ask whether we go in for building any small airships for the Navy, and whether the Admiralty have asked for any, because during the War we found the small airship most useful for searching for submarines. In fact, during the War we never lost a food ship or a trade ship where we had a small airship patrol with it, and the captains of our Mercantile Marine ships, when they approached these shores towards the end of the War, were always asking for small airships as patrols. They had a great opinion of them for detecting submarines, and I should like to ask if the Admiralty have ever made any demand for these small airships since the War.

7.55 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: My hon. and gallant Friend has asked about the numbers of scientists, and has stated the the number is smaller this year than it was last year. As a matter of fact, it is an increased figure this year, and it is only because there has been a reclassification that the hon. and gallant Member has been misled on the point. If he will look under the heading, "Ancillary scientific and technical staff," he will see that there has been an addition to the figure there as compared with last year. With regard to awards to be won at Farnborough, some have been won by scientists there, and although I do not know at the present time what particular inventions they were given for, I will find out and let my hon. and gallant Friend know. At the beginning of the Debate on Tuesday I stated that we had got this new scientific committee which has been set up to deal with the scientific side of defence against air attack and, as a result of the labours of that committee, I hope we shall be able to satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend on various points that have been raised, although not perhaps on the last point, on the question of airships, because I do not think that that is for the moment in our programme. No one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend what our policy is on the question of airships. It is not one which has been fixed for all time, but for the moment we are holding a watching brief.

Sir M. SUETER: My point was this: Have the Admiralty asked the Royal Air Force for any of these small airships for patrol work in connection with the Fleet?

Sir P. SASSOON: Well, they have not, as a matter of fact.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

7.58 p.m.

Captain GUEST: It is with regret that at this time of the evening, when it would appear that most people want to go to dinner, one should reopen a discussion
which was partially attended to last Tuesday. I say "partially," because I feel that as time goes on the Government of the day, whichever Government it may be, will appreciate the fact that civil aviation deserves a day to itself. It is not only for that reason that I ask the attention of the (House for a few minutes, but because so many important points connected with civil aviation have to be passed over and almost slurred over. No particular replies were given to several questions raised last Tuesday, dealing directly with civil aviation, which appear under Vote 8, and one of them is the question of the rights and wrongs of the convertibility of civil planes for military purposes. I have a few words to say upon that question, but the other matter which I wish to elaborate as rapidly as I can is whether further encouragement might not be given to civil pilots with the object of forming them into a reserve for war purposes if necessary. Those two points, I submit, were not really replied to, and very little attention was paid to them, but in my opinion they are fundamental points. If the world was not in a turmoil, I would not waste a moment of the time of the House in presenting to it on the Report stage of the Air Estimates details which would in normal times be but details, but which I submit are matters of vital importance to-day. Within the last 48 hours—in fact, since we had the Air Estimates debated in this House on Tuesday last—action has been taken by a neighbour, and presumably an ally, dealing with aerial activities and aerial defence.
That indicates the seriousness of the present international situation, and shows the vital importance of our considering in this House every detail of aerial development. My third point is that the development of civil aviation is the foundation of national air defence. How to get the best out of civil aviation I do not think has ever been studied. I do not know whose business it is. I do not know whether it is to be left to the Air Committee of the House of Commons from time to time to make speeches on this subject. Where is the driving force? It may be that it is not accepted as a truth that civil aviation is the foundation of air defence. If it has been proved true of the sea for centuries, why should it
not now be accepted with regard to the air? The answer is that the air is not so widely understood, but if it is true that the merchant service is the backbone of the Navy, surely it is true that civil aviation is the backbone of the Air Force.
Unless we grasp this principle in time and pursue its logical development—it is not a bellicose development but a normal, natural development—we shall get so far behind that if trouble comes we shall not be able to catch up. I do not know how to press the point harder than that. One has tried by every known means to get the Government to say that there must be a definite proportion of assistance for the civil side, as compared with the military side. The comparison to-day is something pathetic. If you will not compare the figures of our own country, let me compare those of other countries. Other countries seem to appreciate the vital necessity of developing the civil side of aviation. It does not necessarily mean that they are warlike, or want a scrap with their neighbours. They appreciate that a new science, a new dimension, has come into human activity and are determined that whatever its disadvantages may be they will not be left behind. We are left so far behind by our neighbours, not only by America but by our European neighbours, that we really ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We are not the poorest country in the world. We seem to find money for almost every other purpose except civil aviation. I do not know what is the blight. There is some dead hand hanging over this problem. Is it to be suggested that we cannot afford the money? Last year we were able to reduce the Income Tax by 6d. A penny on the Income Tax would give us enough and to spare to keep level with civil aviation developments in other lands. There is something to be explained, and that is my reason for not allowing this Vote to go through without discussion.
I do not think it is for lack of examples that the Ministry have been unable to do anything, for examples seem to stare us in the face. It cannot be unknown that German machines will carry 30 passengers at 170 miles an hour, and that they have been doing that for the past year. We cannot put up much more than half that speed. There is something wrong. Why is it that they have had the energy and
the effort to go ahead? It may be answered that they have spent the money and we have not. The vote on German aviation in 1933–34 was £8,000,000. The vote for 1934–35 is £25,000,000. It may be said that is going into other channels than are described in their vote, but up to last year they were not supposed to have a military air force, and therefore I am entitled to presume it has all gone into civil development. These figures have got to be answered, and they cannot be left to simmer in the pot of unanswered questions. That is why the Germans can produce a machine which can go from Berlin to Barcelona in eight hours, carrying either 32 passengers or possibly two tons of bombs. This House, in view of the risks which are in the international atmosphere, ought not to be content to spend just about £500,000 on the development of the civil side of aviation.
I want to present this point to my friends of the Opposition, because I know from experience that they are always ready and willing to support an idea which is national as long as it is not bellicose. I take the Territorial Army. Many of them belonged to it at different times and many of them have fought gallantly in that capacity as officers or men, because they realised, as we do, that it is the obligation of every citizen to be ready to do his best when the time of war comes. It is to the Territorial movement that I would like to see this money devoted. I regard the Territorial as civil aviation. I regard the Auxiliary Air Force as civil aviation. I want the help of the Opposition to support this. I would go so far as to say that if they would support me in the view that the country must be made air-minded through civil aviation, I would gladly see a reduction in the military Vote. It is only in that way that we shall manage to overcome this problem and to regain the position that we held in 1918. I have had the opportunity I wanted to re-state the case for a separate day to be devoted by Parliament to civil aviation, because it covers a much wider ground that merely the stating of the military side, with its equipment. It has given me also an opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to our terrible paucity of pilots. You can turn a machine out in three
weeks, but as you cannot turn a pilot out under two years we are foolish beyond belief in remaining so far behind.
Questions have been asked before now in this House as to the number of our pilots. I know pretty well, and I can remember most of the answers given on that subject. On the military side we have between 2,500 and 2,700. On the civil side it is only 2,502. When I speak of that figure let me draw the attention of the House to a most frightful waste of money. Not only has the Ministry been parsimonious in the money granted to civil aviation, but a great deal of it has been wasted. I looked back into the figures of "A" licence pilots who have taken licences with the assistance of the light flying clubs. I find that from 1929 to 1933, the best years of which I could get details, 4,500 pilots have taken licences, and nearly 50 per cent. have not renewed them; yet a contribution has gone from the State to these light flying clubs for every one of these licences taken out. Whichever way you look at it, the neglect of civil aviation, the lack of grasping the problem with energy and courage, is self-evident.
I am certain that as years go by we shall get further and further behind. I made a little comparison between what we spend as a great country generally in upholding our civilisation. I am not far wrong in saying we spend £800,000,000 in supporting our civilisation. We spend £500,000 in training our youth to understand the problems of the new dimension, a dimension which will probably be the deciding factor if war comes. The comparison betwen these two figures is grotesque. I feel certain that sooner or later we shall succeed in pressing our views on those who are in authority. We shall not relax our efforts until we succeed. We are a small body of people who have studied this civil aviation problem as closely even as the Ministers in charge of the Department, and until we get appreciation by the Government of the vital necessity of getting English youth into the air, and to understand it just like a child understands a bicycle in the street, we shall go on pressing our views.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. EVERARD: I desire to be associated with the remarks which have fallen from the lips of my right hon. and gallant
Friend so far as the question of reserves of pilots and civil flying are concerned. We are at a great disadvantage compared with some of the European countries in that we have very few large aircraft in commission. Therefore, we have comparatively few really well-trained pilots who are capable of flying in any type of weather, compared with those in America and in continental countries. To make up the deficiency it is more than ever important that we should take steps at once for the improvement of the training of those who have already got some sort of licence. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his speech the other day used these words, referring to the question of the pilots in the United States of America and in this country:
There are proportionately more private pilots' licences in this country to-day than in the United States of America. Not that we are satisfied with these figures. We want to see them very largely increased, and during the year we have taken very active steps to effect that, of which I will tell the House later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1935; col. 1022, Vol. 299.]
I have searched through the rest of his speech, and I have not found that he has referred to this particular matter. Active steps should be taken for the improved training of any people who are prepared to be on the reserve, but who are nevertheless not able for territorial reasons to join any auxiliary air squadron. I do not think it would be very difficult to put a scheme into operation of that sort and it would be of very great importance. My right hon. Friend was perhaps a little misled in the number of licensed pilots in the light aeroplane clubs. He announced that at the end of 1934 there were 4,700 licensed pilots. What I do not think he understood is that a great many of these pilots belong to four or five, or even more, clubs, and the actual number of pilots who renew their licences does not approach anything like this figure. If that were the figure of last year, the £16,000 for the whole of the light aeroplane clubs would have been eaten up several times.
I want to say a word about Imperial Airways. Personally, I am not one of those who belittle what has been done by Imperial Airways. I appreciate that we may not have proceeded as fast as we should have liked, but I think we have proceeded on an economical and very sure basis. Undoubtedly the time has come
when we have to make a very material expansion in our Imperial air services. My right hon. Friend told us the other day that 122 tons of mail were carried by Imperial Airways last year. I have looked up the figures, and I find that when all first-class mail is carried to the Empire, as is the long-range policy of the Government, we shall be carrying 20 times the load of mails which were carried last year. That will obviously mean an enormous augmentation of the fleet of Imperial Airways. I am one of those who believe that if you take all the machines with a lift capacity of four tons, which is the size of the large Imperial Airway machines, you will find that we shall require larger machines in the future, and if we are to transport passengers by day and night across the great Empire routes, it is perfectly clear that we shall have to have some form of sleeping accommodation on these large Imperial Airway liners in the future. I understand that the present fleet of Imperial Airways is only 36 to 38 machines. My calculation is that, with the increased amount of mail and the increasing amount of passenger facilities, at least 100 machines of larger type will be required, and that cannot possibly cost less than £2,000,000 of capital expenditure.
I come to particulars of our own local air routes at home. Those of us who have viewed the advances which have been made in this direction cannot be satisfied with them up to date. We cannot expect to see a really good, definitely well-organised service up and down or across this country unless it is assured of postal facilities as well. With the speed at which aeroplanes go at the present time and with the country so well served with railways and with roads it is not easily a paying proposition for these air services if only ordinary passenger travelling is concerned, but if the air mails are carried as well—and there can be no doubt that there must be very great acceleration of air mail services—these passenger and mail services are combined I believe it will be a paying proposition to run these inland services. It is for that reason that I hope my right hon. Friend will express his view to the Postmaster-General—whose work for the air we all so much admire—that at the earliest possible moment he should make use of as many of these inland services as possible for the carriage of first-class
mails. I have asked several questions in regard to the mail to the Channel Islands. There is an excellent service which has been in operation for over a year and has taken a large number of passengers across to the Island of Jersey and back, with very great success. Yet this particular airway company has not, so far as I know, been given any mail contract. I should have thought that they had amply shown that they were capable of carrying out mail services for the Channel Islands by the regular service which they have given to the public for over a year.
There is another point to which I would draw attention. The railway companies have interested themselves in air services. Whether that is for the good of the air services or not is a very doubtful question. I still have at the back of my head the buying up of the canals by the railway companies and the buying of a great many omnibus services by the railway companies. Whether the buying up of air services or the assistance given to air communications by the railway companies means that they really intend to put their backs into the work or whether they intend to stifle those companies which are in competition with them, is a matter the development of which we shall await with interest. Yet another matter calls for attention. My right hon. Friend told us the other day that there is going to be, or there has been this year, an improvement in the meteorological services for civil flying. I would ask whether the Continental reports can be included in these services which are sent out from Heston Aerodrome or some other places. No Continental weather reports are given, and I think that matter might well receive consideration.
Another point is whether my right hon. Friend would consider the granting of facilities for Customs aerodromes in those parts of the country which are not so served at the present time. I think he must realise, in fact I am sure he does, that owing to the very large number of aircraft proceeding in and out of the air ports of London to-day—there are only two or three air ports which are Customs air ports—any person who does not live near a Customs aerodrome, unless they are able to go to Lympne must come into the London area and add to the congestion of those
already overcrowded airports. If we could have a regional system within a reasonable limited area giving Customs facilities all over the country we should enormously reduce the danger of the congestion of the London airports, and it would be a very great advantage to all those who fly in this country.
I am glad to learn that steps are to be taken towards lighting up some of our internal air routes. I am not sure from the figures how much money is to be taken for that purpose, but I am certain that it is a reform long overdue. We seem to have moved into a vicious circle in this regard. Nobody will fly at night because there are no facilities and nobody will put up any facilities because there is no flying at night. These vicious circles are to be found in various walks of life, and somebody has to make a start to break through them. I am sure that with a little encouragement the Government might persuade the local authorities to take action, or they might give a lead themselves in the matter of lighting. I see no reason why the Government should not make a start by putting a light on the Cardington mooring mast. They have electricity at the top, and if they would put up a revolving light they would show that they are willing to give a start to the idea. There are a good many other ways in which the lighting facilities could be improved. Let it not be forgotten that this lighting is of enormous advantage to the Royal Air Force itself. It is not only a question of civil flying.
Every single extra light in this country may mean the saving of one machine. Let me give a personal experience. I was asked if I would light up my own private aerodrome in order to give facilities for the Air Force in their week's training. I was only too delighted to render what small assistance I could. The aerodrome was lighted, and it so happened that one of the largest types of British bombers had some difficulty with an accumulator and had to make a forced landing. Had it not done so those who were in the machine might have been suffocated owing to the fumes, and the machine might have been damaged or destroyed. I mention that incident in connection with my own private aerodrome in order to emphasise the point that if we had far more of
these lighted aerodromes it might save not only a large amount of money to the Air Force in avoiding damage to machines but also it might save personnel. Certainly, it would be of enormous advantage to civil flying in all parts of the country. These are the points which I desire to put before my right hon. Friend. We thank him very much for the push he has given to civil aviation in the last year and for the long-range programme which he has put forward and last, but not least, for the wonderful achievement in linking up Australia with the mother country.

8.25 p.m.

Sir M. SUETER: I agree with very much that was said by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) as to the necessity for pressing on with civil aviation, and I am sorry that more money is not allocated to this purpose. A very small amount is taken, even with the subsidy, compared with the large sums which are going for the repair of old battleships. Civil aviation should get a little more money. My hon. and gallant Friend also asked who was the directing force in the matter of civil aviation. I submit that the Director-General of Civil Aviation is the man who should press on with it, but you must give him a good staff, and I should like to ask whether he has all the staff that he wants. The Estimates provide for the State-owned civil aerodromes at Croydon and Lympne. Is anything being done to speed up the facilities for getting to Croydon quickly? It takes far too long. It takes three-quarters of an hour from the centre of London, which is about as long as it takes a fast machine to fly from Liverpool to London, My hon. Friend suggests that the Minister of Transport has now made it worse; but it is a matter which should be looked into. I should also like to know whether any steps have been taken towards providing an aerodrome to the north of London to deal with the air traffic coming from the north. Instead of having to fly to Croydon, I think there should be a good aerodrome to the north of London.
In regard to air mails, the Postmaster-General has been most progressive, and the whole staff of the Post Office is becoming air-minded. Has the question of
efficient aerodromes and aeroplanes on our air routes been considered so that the Postmaster-General will not be let in? He proposes to carry a large number of air mails and this traffic will increase. We want him to have the best equipment that is possible so that the air mail service will not be impaired. Then as regards the West Indies: Pan-American Airways have served the West Indies for the last few years most efficiently, but now with faster machines and increased range they are giving some of the islands in the West Indies a miss. They are feeling this very much, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will find it possible to help in some way by making a small grant towards starting a service in the West Indies. It is most important that they should be well served. I hope he will look into these various points and give me an answer some time in the future.

8.30 p.m.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: I want to ask one question. The Under-Secretary has heard criticisms of civil aviation policy, and the Government have defended their position admirably. The accusation from all sides of the House has been that we are behind our European and American competitors. The Government's answer is that we have achieved economy, safety and reliability.

Sir P. SASSOON: And popularity.

Captain BALFOUR: Yes, but popularity is not entirely confined to British lines. When you are making a comparison with American lines that fact does not enter. You can make that point with regard to European lines, but you must withdraw any comparison as to popularity between our lines and American lines. The American lines have achieved popularity if we are to compare American achievement with our own. The point I was going to make is that we are now going to run a trans-Atlantic service within the next three or four years in connection with Pan-American Airways. Is the same criticism going to be made—to be met by the same admirable defence on the part of the Government—that we are behindhand again? Have the Government a vision in front of them in civil aviation which will deal with flying from here to the Cape nonstop, to Egypt non-stop, and with a trans-Atlantic service? Is there any
organisation in the Air Ministry, in addition to the hard working and efficient members of the Department, who have their daily routine work to do, which I would call the "to-morrow" committee. In some railway organisations there is a committee of the board of directors which is called the "to-morrow committee," and their job is to visualise developments 10 and 15 years ahead. Is there any committee in the Air Ministry whose job it is to look far ahead, beyond the immediate present, and lay out plans to be followed so that we shall be well ahead of our competitors in the matter of world aerial transport.

8.33 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: There are two questions I desire to ask. The first arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for Melton Mowbray (Mr. Everard), who asked for more extensive weather reports and the inclusion of Continental weather reports in the daily bulletin. I consider this a very important matter. Is it not possible to get more detailed weather reports from the British Isles? At the present moment they are good in their way and fairly up-to-date, but there is nothing like sufficient detail covering all parts of the country.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): That arises on Vote 9 which is not now before the House.

Lord APSLEY: Surely the question of weather reports would come under civil aviation?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No. We are now strictly governed by the rules in Committee of Supply, and we can only deal with the Vote before the House. The question of meteorological reports arises on Vote 9 which is not before us.

Lord APSLEY: I should like to raise the matter at this moment, because the fact that the meteorological report has nothing to do with civil aviation is one of the grievances of the air committee of this House. It is so tied up with service flying that we cannot raise it on civil aviation. I hope the Under-Secretary will make it clear that the question of weather reports will be brought directly under the control of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, who is also a member of the Air Council. It is a matter which
affects all flying people, whether private owners or air companies. I think that more use might be made of civil organisations like the Automoble Association. Every automobile association scout in a watershed would be willing to send in a weather report to a central area, where the details of these reports could be correlated at very little expense.
Another question I wish to raise I have raised on a previous occasion. It is one for which I have frequently been laughed at by experts on aviation. All the same the great theoretical experts do not always come so much into contact with actual practice. I believe there is no pilot regularly flying commercial planes inland or on a Continental air route, and few pilots of bombing squadrons who have to go across country, who do not find that it is possible to lose their way even with the best navigation in the world. You may be going over low cloud and your drift calculations may be set awry by a change in the wind. The weather in which you started may change and the cloud drop so low, or the ground mist come up, and you have to go on to some place not included in your route. Then you come out through the cloud, with limited visibility below you, and you have to find out where you are. It is not easy. I know that sometimes the names of towns are printed on the roofs of gasometers, but it is probable that you never see them. Now that the railways have taken up flying seriously, could not the Minister ask them to co-operate by Having the names of their stations on the roofs of those stations? All that a pilot would have to do would be to get to the nearest railway and read the name of the station on the roof. Then he could pick up his bearings and go on again.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The right hon. Gentleman who opened the discussion on this Vote made an appeal to us who sit on the Labour benches. He said he was confident that whenever an appeal was made on the ground of national interest the party here would respond. He is quite right in his judgment to-night. We feel interested in this question of civil aviation, and we think it is a matter of vital importance that the utmost encouragement should be given to this form of transport. It is of great national
importance that this country should be made the centre of a large aviation system. It is sometimes said that we have not developed civil aviation to the extent that other countries have done, and the reply has been that this country is too small, that there is little scope for flying beyond our shores, and that we are limited by geographical boundaries. But that is not the answer. This country, small as it is, is large enough to provide several large stations as the base of a central system which would radiate to all parts of the world, and especially to the Empire countries. It is true that this country is small, and in terms of flying time is only of one hour's breadth and two hour's length, but in spite of all modern progress in aviation remote parts of the Empire are still four, five and six days away from us.
Because of the lack of facilities for long-distance flying we suggest to the Government that the expenditure upon civil aviation should be immensely expanded in the provision of the kind of station that we have already at Croydon, with the necessary ground organisation. I live in the West part of the country. We could very well do with a station and aerodrome there as a starting point for the trans-Atlantic service; and there is no reason why we should not have direct flying facilities from Wales to Croydon. What is vitally urgent is a co-ordination of air, road and rail for the improvement of transport. There is a great future for air transport, and it will call for considerable organisation. Immense changes are taking place. I was pleased yesterday to find that we are carrying a very large volume of mail by air. Over 6,000,000 letters a year are taken from this country to Empire countries which are linked up with us, and convenience is immensely served by this service.
It is true that civil aviation is connected with military aviation, but we are hoping for the time when the air will no longer be used for purposes of war. Anyone who is conversant with the great developments due to science can look forward with optimism to a further shortening of the ways of communication. The new idea of taking advantage of the rarified atmosphere of the stratosphere for long-distance flying is one worthy of consideration. Planning has to come in any case in the building up of the new system
of communications. We join with those who have urged the Minister to give more direct encouragement to civil aviation, and we hope he will be able to respond favourably to our request.

8.45 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: I am very glad to see the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) is developing into an air expert. He came to see me a day or two before the Estimates Debate and impressed upon me the fact that although he was very much interested in flying, he knew very little about it, but I think the House now realises that in a very short space of time he has managed to increase his knowledge of the subject immensely. He has made valuable contributions to this Debate and to the Estimates Debate, and I hope he will continue to do so because it will be a great pleasure to us to hear him in future on these matters.
Turning to the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), I cannot help thinking that while perhaps he is not quite satisfied with things as they are he shows a tendency to stress his criticisms rather too much. According to him it would appear that there is nothing right, that there is no improvement in the position and that we are doing nothing for the development of civil aviation, whereas everything that is being done by every other country in this respect is perfect. I do not think that my right hon. and gallant Friend really takes that view and I think he only develops that line of argument because he wishes to press this very important matter as strongly as he can. I do not think that our record in the matter of civil aviation is so bad to-day. I do not think that we have anything whatever to be ashamed of. It is true that certain countries spend enormous sums on some of their services but I think that for the money that we have spent in this country the results have been excellent. Nobody can deny the success of Imperial Airways. Its popularity is as great as that of the American Companies and it is certainly run more cheaply. I consider that our achievements in civil aviation are not at all bad and our plans for the immediate and distant future are full of the greatest possibilities of further success.
I shall turn later to other points raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend but before doing so I wish to deal with one or two questions put to me by other Members. First there is the point raised by my Noble Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) as to painting the names of towns and cities on the railway stations. He said such an innovation would be of immense value especially in foggy weather. Of course, while we may encourage proposals of that kind these are not matters in which we can dictate. I have been told that while it would probably prove a very great convenience to people who have to fly in bad weather that these names should be displayed on railway stations, gasometers and the like, it would also be a certain amount of encouragement to people to fly lower than they ought to fly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That point has been put to me and I think it well to mention it while not denying the fact that such aids to aviation would be very valuable.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) raised one or two points which were also mentioned by other Members. I should like to say to him and also in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Everard) that we are doing everything we can to achieve the objects which they have in view. When we remember the forward policy which is being adopted by the Postmaster-General we are full of hope as to development in that direction. With regard to the improvement of ground organisation all over the country we fully realise the importance of that question. We have done a great deal in connection with the meteorological and wireless services and we propose to do a great deal more this year. We propose also to make a beginning with the provision of electrical equipment for night flying which is another matter of the greatest importance. The question has also been raised of the provision of Customs facilities at aerodromes all over the country but that is not a matter for the Air Ministry. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for that matter on the Front Bench this evening but I do not suppose that it would be in order to interrogate him on that subject to-night. It is, of course, a matter for the Treasury.

Mr. EVERARD: I did not mean to say that there should be Customs stations at aerodromes all over the country. What I suggested was that there should be one such station in each large area.

Sir P. SASSOON: Wherever they were to be, I do not think that it is the affair of the Air Ministry. It would be necessary to get permission from the Treasury. I turn again to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth. He has stressed the case that civil aviation is the basis of military defence and everybody knows that civil aviation must have a certain definite value for defence purposes. But that value lies primarily in broadening the whole basis of the engine and aircraft manufacturing industries by creating wider markets for their products. On the other hand, there are two big points in connection with this question which I would like to suggest to the House. His Majesty's Government are most anxious that this great scientific gift of civil air transport which we believe to be a powerful force in stimulating peace all over the world, which offers unrivalled facilities of intercommunication between the nations, shall not come to be looked upon simply as a potential war machine. Various proposals have been put forward at Geneva to prevent that happening. Also, I think that it is easy in a way to overrate the value of civil aviation for war purposes.
Let me give the House a concrete illustration. France is spending over £1,200,000 a year on subsidies for civil aviation and the result is that they have a heterogeneous fleet of 180 civil machines in their commercial air transport. On the other hand, France's military air force which was mentioned by the Lord President of the Council in November last, has a first line strength of 1,650 machines or nine times the strength of her commercial fleet. For that sum of £1,200,000 we could maintain 10 regular and five auxiliary squadrons whose first line strength would be the same as the first line strength of that commercial fleet. But those first line machines would be of the genuine military type, with fully trained service pilots, reserves, and all the essential background of military organisation behind them. Therefore, I think we must be a little careful about drawing analogies
such as my right hon. and gallant Friend has drawn with the Mercantile Marine. The tonnage of the British Mercantile Marine to-day is I believe some 30 times that of the Royal Navy. Contrast the figures with those for the French commercial and military air fleets—the latter nine times the size of the civil fleet in terms of first-line strength alone. I do not wish to prejudge the future. I hope perhaps that in the days to come these figures will be reversed. But we must have regard to the realities of to-day.
I would like to give the House a final illustration which is an answer to what my right hon. and gallant Friend said about the development of civil aviation in Germany. We all know that there has been a phenomenal development of civil aviation in Germany. That has been due to the fact that up to this year, owing to the Treaty of Versailles the whole of the technical and financial energies of that great country in aviation have been put entirely into the development of civil aviation. But the moment Germany begins to think of aviation in terms of defence, does she consider that her civil aviation is sufficient? Not at all. The moment she realises that, she insists on a strong military air force. Therefore, His Majesty's Government feel that although we ought to do everything we possibly can to stimulate the development of civil aviation in this country—commercial air transport and everything connected with it—and while it is our firm intention to do so, we are going to do it with an eye to its lawful and peaceful uses, rather than its use as a potential military instrument. That will be in accordance with the policy which we have consistently followed at Geneva and which we are sure is best for the peace of the world.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth raised the question of pilots, and he queried my figures. Last year there were about 2,980 "A" licences and 498 "B" licences; 125 "B" licensed pilots also held "A" licences. There was a total number of civil pilots of 3,350. Nearly 1,200 new pilots took out "A" licences last year, and about 5,000 new pilots have taken out "A" licences in the course of the last five years. I do not
think they are very unsatisfactory figures. My right hon. and gallant Friend has put forward a scheme for the further training of pilots through the medium of the light aeroplane club movement. He was good enough to let me have a memorandum dealing with his proposals last week, and we are considering it, and I hope shortly to be able to give him a further answer. There are one or two points in his remarks which have left me a little puzzled. I am not sure whether he realises that the light aeroplane club subsidy scheme provides for an annual grant of £10 for each pilot who renews his "A" licence. I am wondering whether he realises that so many new pilots took out "A" licences last year. I think that the figure of 1,200 is very satisfactory. There were only 18 clubs receiving subsidies 12 months ago. The number has risen to 33, and we wish to see it rise shortly to 40. That is a considerable increase. With this 100 per cent. increase in the number of clubs I shall be disappointed if we do not get a substantial increase in the number of new pilots produced in 1935.

Captain GUEST: May I help my right hon. Friend, because it will help the House? It is important that these figures should not overlap each other or be misunderstood. If my figures are-wrong, I should like to be informed, but the figures have varied so much in the Debates that the public should know how they stand. The figures I was given were that from 1929 to 1933, 4,295 "A" licences were taken out and 2,505 were not renewed. Those figures would suggest that practically 50 per cent. of the licences taken out during that period of four years have not been renewed. The figure which my right hon. Friend gives is that there are something like 3,000 existing holders of "A" licences. Is that so?

Sir P. SASSOON: That is so. The figures I have given are up-to-date. I know that my right hon. and gallant Friend makes a great point about the renewal of "A" licences. As I said in the Debate two days ago, important as these renewals are, they are not so important from our point of view as getting new pilots. That is more important than maintaining them in flying practice after they have obtained their licences. After all, we give this
allowance of £10 to the club for each renewal. I must again emphasise that the object of this scheme is to get new pilots with "A" licences, and, if we can have renewals as well to a great extent, we shall be only too pleased. If we can reconcile these two desiderata without an undue or lavish amount of expenditure, we shall be only too pleased to do so. We are considering the scheme of my right hon. and gallant Friend, for which I thank him, and these proposals are now under discussion at the Air Ministry.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

REPORT [19TH MAKCH].

Resolutions reported,
1. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £6,233,913 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1936, the sum of £223,442,150 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Duff Cooper.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL,

"to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five and one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Blindell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Nine o'Clock.